↓ Skip to main content

Humans and monkeys distinguish between self-generated, opposing, and random actions

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Humans and monkeys distinguish between self-generated, opposing, and random actions
Published in
Animal Cognition, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0792-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin J. Couchman

Abstract

The sense of self-agency results from monitoring the relationship between prior thoughts and action plans, sensorimotor information, and perceived outcomes. It is thought to be an important factor underlying self-recognition and self-awareness. Three experiments investigated the sense of self-agency in humans and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). First, humans were asked to move a cursor with a joystick while several distractor cursors also moved on-screen. They were asked to identify either the cursor they were controlling, or a distractor using visual cues alone. Six rhesus macaques were then given a similar task in which they needed to identify a self-controlled cursor that was paired with several different types of distractors. Both groups were able to identify the self-controlled cursor, and monkeys performed best when the oppositely moving cursor was the distractor. A third experiment showed that humans, like macaques, use both perceptual and self-agency information to make decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 23%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 10 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,224,256
of 24,849,927 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#289
of 1,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,167
of 236,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#7
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,849,927 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 236,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.