| Title |
Quantity discrimination in Tenebrio molitor: evidence of numerosity discrimination in an invertebrate?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-008-0207-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Carazo, E. Font, E. Forteza-Behrendt, E. Desfilis |
| Abstract |
Numerosity discrimination, the ability to distinguish between sets with more and less items, is recognised as the foundation for higher numerical abilities. Understanding numerosity discrimination from a comparative perspective is hence pivotal in tracing the evolution of numerical representation systems. However, numerosity discrimination has been well studied only in vertebrates, where two innate systems of number representation have been described: an 'analog magnitude system' used to discriminate among numerosities by representing them as cardinal magnitudes and a 'parallel individualisation system' that allows precise discrimination among small arrays of items (< or =4) by representing objects individually. We investigated the existence of quantity discrimination in an insect species (Tenebrio molitor) by using a spontaneous two-choice procedure in which males were exposed to substrates bearing odours from different numbers of females (< or =4) in increasing numerosity ratios (1:4, 1:3 and 1:2). We show that males can discriminate sources of odours reflecting 1 versus 4 and 1 versus 3 females, but not 2 versus 4 or 1 versus 2, indicating that T. molitor males exhibit a marked preference for sources reflecting more female donors only when numerosity ratios are below 1:2. We discuss the functional significance of this finding and whether our pattern of results could be best explained by summation of a non-numerical continuous variable or by the existence of a numerosity discrimination mechanism with an operational signature ratio of 1:2. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 100 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 23% |
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 12 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 38% |
| Psychology | 23 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 05 September 2020.
All research outputs
#5,879,023
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#812
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,972
of 169,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 169,091 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.