| Title |
Mirror self-recognition: a review and critique of attempts to promote and engineer self-recognition in primates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-015-0488-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
James R. Anderson, Gordon G. Gallup |
| Abstract |
We review research on reactions to mirrors and self-recognition in nonhuman primates, focusing on methodological issues. Starting with the initial demonstration in chimpanzees in 1970 and subsequent attempts to extend this to other species, self-recognition in great apes is discussed with emphasis on spontaneous manifestations of mirror-guided self-exploration as well as spontaneous use of the mirror to investigate foreign marks on otherwise nonvisible body parts-the mark test. Attempts to show self-recognition in other primates are examined with particular reference to the lack of convincing examples of spontaneous mirror-guided self-exploration, and efforts to engineer positive mark test responses by modifying the test or using conditioning techniques. Despite intensive efforts to demonstrate self-recognition in other primates, we conclude that to date there is no compelling evidence that prosimians, monkeys, or lesser apes-gibbons and siamangs-are capable of mirror self-recognition. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 States | 3 | 16% |
| Japan | 2 | 11% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 5% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 5% |
| Jordan | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 68% |
| Scientists | 3 | 16% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 16% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 184 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 49 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 5% |
| Professor | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 45 | 24% |
| Psychology | 39 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 9 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 32 | 17% |
| Unknown | 40 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 22 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,113,919
of 25,026,088 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#83
of 1,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,011
of 272,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,026,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 272,901 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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.