↓ Skip to main content

A social cichlid fish failed to pass the mark test

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, November 2017
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
A social cichlid fish failed to pass the mark test
Published in
Animal Cognition, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10071-017-1146-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takashi Hotta, Shiho Komiyama, Masanori Kohda

Abstract

Since the pioneering work in chimpanzees, mirror self-recognition (MSR), the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror, has been reported in great apes, Asian elephants, dolphins, and some social birds using the mark test, in which animals that possess MSR touch an imperceptible mark on their own bodies only when a mirror is present. However, giant pandas, which are solitary, failed to pass the mark test, suggesting that MSR evolved solely in highly social animals. In contrast to the increasing evidence of MSR in mammals and birds, little is known about MSR in fish. A Tanganyikan cichlid, Neolamprologus pulcher, is a good candidate for study because these fish live in highly social groups and recognise conspecifics about as rapidly as primates. We examined their responses to a mirror image and tested whether N. pulcher could pass the mark test. When the mirror was first exposed, they stayed in front of the mirror and exhibited aggressive behaviour towards the mirror image. These social behaviours suggested that the focal fish perceived the mirror image as an unfamiliar conspecific. The social responses decreased over the following days, as has generally been the case in animals with MSR. After mark injection, we found no increase in scraping behaviour or prolonged observation of the marked side. These results show a lack of contingency checking and mark-directed behaviours, meaning that N. pulcher failed to pass the mark test and did not recognise their self-image in the mirror.

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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 16 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 41%
Environmental Science 5 8%
Psychology 5 8%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 17 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,596,378
of 25,728,350 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#350
of 1,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,062
of 441,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#8
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 441,176 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 92% 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.