↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating handedness measures in spider monkeys

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating handedness measures in spider monkeys
Published in
Animal Cognition, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10071-014-0805-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eliza L. Nelson, Alejandra Figueroa, Stephanie N. Albright, Maria F. Gonzalez

Abstract

Despite long-standing interest and a vast body of literature, there is still disagreement as to how handedness should be measured in nonhuman primates. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate two common measures of handedness in nonhuman primates using the spider monkey, a unique study species due to its lack of a thumb and limited dexterity. Contrary to our predictions and previous findings in Ateles, there was no evidence for group-level hand biases on either the coordinated bimanual TUBE task or a unimanual reaching task. At the individual level, monkeys exhibited preferences on both tasks. There was a leftward trend on the bimanual task and a rightward trend on the unimanual task. Monkeys that were strongly lateralized on the bimanual task showed a comparable hand preference on the unimanual task, whereas monkeys with a moderate preference on the bimanual task shifted to the opposite hand on the unimanual task. Comparing across measures, the two hand-use patterns reported (consistent and shift) might have obscured group-level findings, given the available sample size. Overall, these data reaffirm that task type influences hand use in primates, and multiple measures are needed to fully characterize the construct of handedness. Consideration should be given to the difficulty required between tasks as well as between species.

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 %
United States 2 7%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 27 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 6 20%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 6 20%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 37%
Psychology 6 20%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 16 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,410,369
of 24,278,128 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#707
of 1,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,403
of 243,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#9
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,278,128 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 243,474 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.