| Title |
Multiple cue use and integration in pigeons (Columba livia)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Animal Cognition, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10071-016-0963-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eric L. G. Legge, Christopher R. Madan, Marcia L. Spetch, Elliot A. Ludvig |
| Abstract |
Encoding multiple cues can improve the accuracy and reliability of navigation and goal localization. Problems may arise, however, if one cue is displaced and provides information which conflicts with other cues. Here we investigated how pigeons cope with cue conflict by training them to locate a goal relative to two landmarks and then varying the amount of conflict between the landmarks. When the amount of conflict was small, pigeons tended to integrate both cues in their search patterns. When the amount of conflict was large, however, pigeons used information from both cues independently. This context-dependent strategy for resolving spatial cue conflict agrees with Bayes optimal calculations for using information from multiple sources. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 20 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Professor | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 14% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 43% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,360,588
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,095
of 1,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,636
of 298,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#19
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,456 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 298,745 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.