↓ Skip to main content

Comparing responses to novel objects in wild baboons (Papio ursinus) and geladas (Theropithecus gelada)

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, June 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
Title
Comparing responses to novel objects in wild baboons (Papio ursinus) and geladas (Theropithecus gelada)
Published in
Animal Cognition, June 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10071-008-0171-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thore J. Bergman, Dawn M. Kitchen

Abstract

Behavioral flexibility is considered by some to be one of the hallmarks of advanced cognitive ability. One measure of behavioral flexibility is how subjects respond to novel objects. Despite growing interest in comparative cognition, no comparative research on neophilia in wild primates has been conducted. Here, we compare responses to novel objects in wild chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) and geladas (Theropithecus gelada). Baboons and geladas are closely related taxa, yet they differ in their ecology and degree of social tolerance: (1) baboons are habitat and dietary generalists, whereas geladas have one of the most specialized primate diets (90% grass); (2) baboons exhibit an aversion toward extra-group individuals, whereas geladas typically exhibit an attraction toward them. Using subjects of all age and sex classes, we examined responses to three different objects: a plastic doll, a rubber ball, and a metal can. Overall, baboon subjects exhibited stronger responses to the objects (greater neophilia and exploration) than gelada subjects, yet we found no evidence that the geladas were afraid of the objects. Furthermore, baboons interacted with the objects in the same way they might interact with a potential food item. Responses were unrelated to sex, but immatures showed more object exploration than adults. Results corroborate novel object research conducted in captive populations and suggest that baboons and geladas have differences in behavioral flexibility (at least in this cognitive domain) that have been shaped by ecological (rather than social) differences between the two species.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 174 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 29%
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 22 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 52%
Psychology 27 15%
Environmental Science 13 7%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 8%
Unknown 26 14%
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 12 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,314,171
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,223
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,938
of 82,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 82,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.