| Title |
Eye preferences in capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Primates, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10329-016-0537-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Duncan A. Wilson, Masaki Tomonaga, Sarah-Jane Vick |
| Abstract |
This study explored whether capuchin monkey eye preferences differ systematically in response to stimuli of positive and negative valence. The 'valence hypothesis' proposes that the right hemisphere is more dominant for negative emotional processing and the left hemisphere is more dominant for positive emotional processing. Visual information from each eye is thought to be transferred faster to and primarily processed by the contralateral cerebral hemisphere. Therefore, it was predicted capuchin monkeys would show greater left eye use for looking at negative stimuli and greater right eye use for looking at positive stimuli. Eleven captive capuchin monkeys were presented with four images of different emotional valence (an egg and capuchin monkey raised eyebrow face were categorised as positive, and a harpy eagle face and capuchin monkey threat face were categorised as negative) and social relevance (consisting of capuchin monkey faces or not), and eye preferences for viewing the stimuli through a monocular viewing hole were recorded. While strong preferences for using either the left or right eye were found for most individuals, there was no consensus at the population level. Furthermore, the direction of looking, number of looks and duration of looks did not differ significantly with the emotional valence of the stimuli. These results are inconsistent with the main hypotheses about the relationship between eye preferences and processing of emotional stimuli. However, the monkeys did show significantly more arousal behaviours (vocalisation, door-touching, self-scratching and hand-rubbing) when viewing the negatively valenced stimuli than the positively valenced stimuli, indicating that the stimuli were emotionally salient. These findings do not provide evidence for a relationship between eye preferences and functional hemispheric specialisations, as often proposed in humans. Additional comparative studies are required to better understand the phylogeny of lateral biases, particularly in relation to emotional valence. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hungary | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 41% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 35% |
| Psychology | 4 | 24% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,335,423
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Primates
#980
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,410
of 299,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Primates
#16
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 299,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.