↓ Skip to main content

Putting the elephant back in the herd: elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
Title
Putting the elephant back in the herd: elephant relative quantity judgments match those of other species
Published in
Animal Cognition, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10071-012-0521-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonnie M. Perdue, Catherine F. Talbot, Adam M. Stone, Michael J. Beran

Abstract

The ability to discriminate between quantities has been observed in many species. Typically, when an animal is given a choice between two sets of food, accurate performance (i.e., choosing the larger amount) decreases as the ratio between two quantities increases. A recent study reported that elephants did not exhibit ratio effects, suggesting that elephants may process quantitative information in a qualitatively different way from all other nonhuman species that have been tested (Irie-Sugimoto et al. in Anim Cogn 12:193-199, 2009). However, the results of this study were confounded by several methodological issues. We tested two African elephants (Loxodonta africana) to more thoroughly investigate relative quantity judgment in this species. In contrast to the previous study, we found evidence of ratio effects for visible and nonvisible sequentially presented sets of food. Thus, elephants appear to represent and compare quantities in much the same way as other species, including humans when they are prevented from counting. Performance supports an accumulator model in which quantities are represented as analog magnitudes. Furthermore, we found no effect of absolute magnitude on performance, providing support against an object-file model explanation of quantity judgment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 94 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 28%
Researcher 22 23%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 13 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 31%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 19 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 30 July 2021.
All research outputs
#366,837
of 22,669,724 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#100
of 1,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,809
of 167,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,669,724 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,441 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 167,239 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 98% 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 86% of its contemporaries.