| Title |
The Ebbinghaus illusion in a fish (Xenotoca eiseni)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-014-0821-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Valeria Anna Sovrano, Liliana Albertazzi, Orsola Rosa Salva |
| Abstract |
The tendency of fish to perceive the Ebbinghaus illusion was investigated. Redtail splitfins (Xenotoca eiseni, family Goodeidae) were trained to discriminate between two disks of different sizes. Then, fish were presented with two disks of the same size surrounded by disks of large or small size (inducers) arranged to produce the impression (to a human observer) of two disks of different sizes (in the Ebbinghaus illusion, a central disk surrounded by small inducers appears bigger than an identical one surrounded by large inducers). Fish chose the stimulus that, on the basis of a perception of the Ebbinghaus illusion, appeared deceptively larger or smaller, consistent with the condition of training. These results demonstrate that redtail splitfins tend to perceive this particular illusion. The results are discussed with reference to other related illusions that have been recently observed to be experienced by fish (such as the Navon effect), and with regard to their possible evolutionary implications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 8 | 42% |
| Spain | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 53 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 36% |
| Psychology | 10 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. 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 26 August 2020.
All research outputs
#684,317
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#163
of 1,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,198
of 371,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#2
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 371,167 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.