| Title |
Information seeking in capuchins (Cebus apella): A rudimentary form of metacognition?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0835-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander Q. Vining, Heidi L. Marsh |
| Abstract |
In previous research, great apes and rhesus macaques have demonstrated multiple apparently metacognitive abilities, whereas capuchin monkeys have not. The present experiment investigated whether at least a rudimentary form of metacognition might be demonstrated in capuchins if a simplified metacognitive task was used. Capuchins (Cebus apella) were required to locate a food reward hidden beneath one of two inverted cups that sat on a Plexiglas tray. In some conditions, the capuchins were shown where the food was hidden, in others they could infer its location, and in yet others they were not given information about the location of the food. On all trials, capuchins could optionally seek information about the food's location by looking up through the Plexiglas beneath the cups. In general, capuchins did this less often when they were shown the food reward, but not when they could infer the reward's location. These data suggest that capuchins-if metacognitive-only metacognitively control their information seeking in some conditions, particularly those in which information is presented in the visual domain. This may represent a rudimentary version of metacognitive control, in comparison with that seen in great apes and humans. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 56 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 13 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 25% |
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 April 2015.
All research outputs
#18,389,490
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,336
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,747
of 379,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#27
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 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 1,451 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 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 379,767 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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.