↓ Skip to main content

Communication using eye roll reflective signalling

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, January 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Communication using eye roll reflective signalling
Published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, January 2007
DOI 10.1098/rspb.2006.0246
Pubmed ID
Authors

I Novales Flamarique, G.A Mueller, C.L Cheng, C.R Figiel

Abstract

Body reflections in the ultraviolet (UV) are a common occurrence in nature. Despite the abundance of such signals and the presence of UV cones in the retinas of many vertebrates, the function of UV cones in the majority of taxa remains unclear. Here, we report on an unusual communication system in the razorback sucker, Xyrauchen texanus, that involves flash signals produced by quick eye rolls. Behavioural experiments and field observations indicate that this form of communication is used to signal territorial presence between males. The flash signal shows highest contrast in the UV region of the visual spectrum (lambdamax approximately 380 nm), corresponding to the maximum wavelength of absorption of the UV cone mechanism in suckers. Furthermore, these cones are restricted to the dorsal retina of the animal and the upwelling light background is such that their relative sensitivity would be enhanced by chromatic adaptation of the other cone mechanisms. Thus, the UV cones in the sucker have optimal characteristics (both in terms of absorbance and retinal topography) to constitute the main detectors of the flash signal. Our findings provide the first ecological evidence for restricted distribution of UV cones in the retina of a vertebrate.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 7%
Spain 1 3%
Malaysia 1 3%
Unknown 26 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 40%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 20%
Student > Master 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 63%
Environmental Science 3 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 January 2007.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#8,147
of 11,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,263
of 168,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#44
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 168,507 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 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.