↓ Skip to main content

Re-evaluating birds’ ability to detect Glass patterns

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Re-evaluating birds’ ability to detect Glass patterns
Published in
Animal Cognition, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0865-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-François Nankoo, Christopher R. Madan, Douglas R. Wylie, Marcia L. Spetch

Abstract

Glass patterns (GPs) are static stimuli that consist of randomly positioned dot-pairs that are spatially integrated to create the perception of a global form. However, when multiple independently generated static GPs are presented sequentially (termed 'dynamic' GP), observers report a percept of coherent motion, and data show an improvement in sensitivity. This increased sensitivity has been attributed to a summation of the form signals provided by the individual GPs. In Experiment 1, we tested whether pigeons also show a heightened sensitivity to dynamic GPs. Our results show that pigeons are significantly better at learning to discriminate dynamic GPs from noise compared with static GPs. However, in contrast to previous research, we found that pigeons did not perform well enough with our static GPs to extract sensitivity measurements. In Experiment 2, we compared our static GPs to those that have been used previously. We show that the difference in the comparison noise patterns is important. We used dipole noise patterns, while previous studies used uniform noise patterns that differ in mean dot spacing to the S+. We argue that prior findings from the use of GPs in pigeons should be re-evaluated using dynamic GP stimuli with noise that consist of dipoles.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Researcher 4 25%
Student > Master 2 13%
Professor 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 31%
Neuroscience 3 19%
Unknown 2 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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
#14,220,809
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,148
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,763
of 264,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#21
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 264,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.