| Title |
Abstract-concept learning of difference in pigeons
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0849-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas A. Daniel, Anthony A. Wright, Jeffrey S. Katz |
| Abstract |
Many species have demonstrated the capacity to learn abstract concepts. Recent studies have shown that the quantity of stimuli used during training plays a critical role in how subjects learn abstract concepts. As the number of stimuli available in the training set increases, so too does performance on novel combinations. The role of set size has been explored with learning the concept of matching and same/different but not with learning the concept of difference. In the present study, pigeons were trained in a non-matching-to-sample task with an initial training set of three stimuli followed by transfer tests to novel stimuli. The training set was progressively doubled eight times with learning and transfer following each expansion. Transfer performance increased from chance level (50 %) at the smallest set size to a level equivalent to asymptotic training performance at the two largest training set sizes (384, 768). This progressive novel-stimulus transfer function of a non-matching (difference) rule is discussed in comparison with results from a similar experiment where pigeons were trained on a matching rule. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 28% |
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 45% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,589,067
of 24,874,764 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,137
of 1,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,097
of 260,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,874,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 260,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.