| Title |
Comparison of discrete ratios by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0914-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline B. Drucker, Marley A. Rossa, Elizabeth M. Brannon |
| Abstract |
Perceiving and comparing ratios are crucial skills for humans. Little is known about whether other animals can compare ratios. We trained two rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) to choose arrays that contained the greater ratio of positive to negative stimuli, regardless of the absolute number of stimuli in each of the two choice arrays. Subjects learned this task, and their performance generalized to novel ratios. Moreover, performance was modulated by the ratio between ratios; subjects responded more quickly and accurately when the ratio between ratios was higher. Control conditions ruled out the possibility that subjects were relying on surface area, although the ratio between ratios of surface area did seem to influence their choices. Our results demonstrate that rhesus monkeys can compare discrete ratios, demonstrating not only proportional reasoning ability but also the ability to reason about relations between relations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 6% |
| Chile | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 33 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 31% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 10 | 28% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 11 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,446,770
of 22,824,164 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#340
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,659
of 266,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#7
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,824,164 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 266,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.