↓ Skip to main content

Generalized rule application in bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus): using predator species as social tools to reduce punishment

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Cognition, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Generalized rule application in bluestreak cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus): using predator species as social tools to reduce punishment
Published in
Animal Cognition, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10071-016-0975-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon Wismer, Alexandra Grutter, Redouan Bshary

Abstract

Generalized rule application promotes flexible behavior by allowing individuals to adjust quickly to environmental changes through generalization of previous learning. Here, we show that bluestreak 'cleaner' wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) uses generalized rule application in their use of predators as social tools against punishing reef fish clients. Punishment occurs as cleaners do not only remove ectoparasites from clients, but prefer to feed on client mucus (constituting cheating). We tested for generalized rule application in a series of experiments, starting by training cleaners to approach one of two fish models in order to evade punishment (by chasing) from a 'cheated' client model. Cleaners learned this task only if the safe haven was a predator model. During consecutive exposure to pairs of novel species, including exotic models, cleaners demonstrated generalization of the 'predators-are-safe-havens' rule by rapidly satisfying learning criteria. However, cleaners were not able to generalize to a 'one-of-two-stimuli-presents-a-safe-haven' rule, as they failed to solve the task when confronted with either two harmless fish models or two predator models. Our results emphasize the importance of ecologically relevant experiments to uncover complex cognitive processes in non-human animals, like generalized rule learning in the context of social tool use in a fish.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 1 4%
Unknown 25 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 11 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 6 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Unknown 13 50%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,820,960
of 24,140,950 outputs
Outputs from Animal Cognition
#1,096
of 1,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,320
of 304,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Cognition
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,140,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 304,945 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.