| Title |
Place versus response learning in fish: a comparison between species
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-015-0922-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire L. McAroe, Cathy M. Craig, Richard A. Holland |
| Abstract |
Place learning is thought to be an adaptive and flexible facet of navigation. Due to the flexibility of this learning, it is thought to be more complex than the simpler strategies such as learning a particular route or navigating through the use of cues. Place learning is crucial in a familiar environment as it allows an individual to successfully navigate to the same endpoint, regardless of where in the environment the journey begins. Much of the research to date focusing on different strategies employed for navigation has used human subjects or other mammals such as rodents. In this series of experiments, the spatial memory of four different species of fish (goldfish, killifish, zebrafish and Siamese fighting fish) was analysed using a plus maze set-up. Results suggest that three of the species showed a significant preference for the adoption of a place strategy during this task, whereas zebrafish showed no significant preference. Furthermore, zebrafish took significantly longer to learn the task than the other species. Finally, results suggest that zebrafish took the least amount of time (seconds) to complete trials both during training and probe. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 23% |
| Unknown | 9 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 37% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 17% |
| Psychology | 9 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 16% |
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 11 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,825,310
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,181
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,531
of 272,856 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 272,856 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.