| Title |
Insufficient evidence for habituation in Mimosa pudica. Response to Gagliano et al. (2014)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Oecologia, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00442-017-4012-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert Biegler |
| Abstract |
Gagliano et al. (Oecologia 175(1):63-72, 2014) reported that Mimosa pudica habituates to repeated stimulation, as shown by a reduction in response, dishabituation, and stimulus specificity. I argue that Gagliano et al.'s data show an absence of dishabituation, that their experimental design needs an additional condition to test whether there is stimulus specificity, and that most of their data can be explained by motor fatigue. Some data are not easily explained by fatigue, and I suggest a further analysis that may clarify the issue. The status of habituation in Mimosa remains uncertain. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 20% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 23% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 26% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
#421,944
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Oecologia
#32
of 4,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,682
of 440,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Oecologia
#2
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,236 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 440,049 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 65 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 96% of its contemporaries.