↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for the perceptual origin of right-sided feeding biases in cetaceans

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Evidence for the perceptual origin of right-sided feeding biases in cetaceans
Published in
Animal Cognition, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10071-015-0899-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karina Karenina, Andrey Giljov, Tatiana Ivkovich, Yegor Malashichev

Abstract

Foraging behaviour of many cetacean species features the side biases at the population level. The origin of these behavioural lateralisations remains generally unclear. Here we explored lateralisation in aerial display of resident orcas in different behavioural contexts. Side preferences were analysed in lunging during foraging and breaching. One event of each type of displays per individually identified orca was used for analysis. Orcas showed a population-level preference to lunge on the right side when foraging (75 % of lunges). In contrast, no lateralisation was found in breaching (54 % of breaches to the right, 45 % to the left). The right-sided bias in foraging found in orcas is in line with evidence from other whales, both baleen and toothed, and confirms the uniformity of feeding biases among cetaceans. In contrast to breaching, lunging in orcas was associated with fish pursuit, that is, with focused attention to and sensory perception of prey stimulus. The emergence of lateralisation in lunging and the absence of significant bias in breaching suggest that feeding biases in whales are underpinned by sensory lateralisation, that is, by lateralised hemispheric processing of sensory information about the prey. Evidence from orcas may be extrapolated to other cetaceans since right-sided biases in lunging during foraging is a very widespread phenomenon and likely to have a common origin. Our findings support the hypothesis that right-sided feeding biases are determined by left-hemisphere specialisation.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 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%
Unknown 41 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 51%
Psychology 5 12%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,418,694
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,336
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,619
of 262,224 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 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 1,452 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 262,224 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.