| Title |
The gesture ‘Touch’: Does meaning-making develop in chimpanzees’ use of a very flexible gesture?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-017-1136-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kim A. Bard, Vanessa Maguire-Herring, Masaki Tomonaga, Tetsuro Matsuzawa |
| Abstract |
In this bottom-up study of gesture, we focused on the details of a single gesture, Touch. We compared characteristics of use by three young chimpanzees with those of 11 adults, their interactive partners, housed in a semi-natural social group at the Kyoto University Primate Research Institute (KUPRI) in Japan. Five hundred eighty-one observations of the gesture Touch were collected across a four-year time span. This single gesture had 36 different forms, was directed to 70 different target locations on the body of social partners, and occurred in 26 different contexts. Significant differences were found between infant and adult initiators in the form, target locations, and contexts of the gesture Touch. There was a wide diversity in form-location patterns within each context, and there were no form-location patterns specific to particular contexts. Thus, we demonstrate that this gesture exhibits flexibility in form and flexibility in use. The results from this study illustrate the importance of contextualized meaning in understanding flexibility in the gesture use of great apes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 18% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 11 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 24% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 3% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,970,125
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#918
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,125
of 327,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#11
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 327,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.