↓ Skip to main content

The path to colour discrimination is S-shaped: behaviour determines the interpretation of colour models

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
The path to colour discrimination is S-shaped: behaviour determines the interpretation of colour models
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00359-017-1208-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jair E. Garcia, Johannes Spaethe, Adrian G. Dyer

Abstract

Most of our current understanding on colour discrimination by animal observers is built on models. These typically set strict limits on the capacity of an animal to discriminate between colour stimuli imposed by physiological characteristics of the visual system and different assumptions about the underlying mechanisms of colour processing by the brain. Such physiologically driven models were not designed to accommodate sigmoidal-type discrimination functions as those observed in recent behavioural experiments. Unfortunately, many of the fundamental assumptions on which commonly used colour models are based have been tested against empirical data for very few species and many colour vision studies solely rely on physiological measurements of these species for predicting colour discrimination processes. Here, we test the assumption of a universal principle of colour discrimination only mediated by physiological parameters using behavioural data from four closely related hymenopteran species, considering two frequently used models. Results indicate that there is not a unique function describing colour discrimination by closely related bee species, and that this process is independent of specific model assumptions; in fact, different models produce comparable results for specific test species if calibrated against behavioural data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 24%
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Other 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 55%
Environmental Science 5 10%
Neuroscience 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#19,221,261
of 23,815,455 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1,225
of 1,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,581
of 317,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,815,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 317,714 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.