↓ Skip to main content

Discriminating the Relation Between Relations: The Role of Entropy in Abstract Conceptualization by Baboons (Papio papio) and Humans (Homo sapiens)

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#28 of 182)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
76 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.
Article details
Title
Discriminating the Relation Between Relations: The Role of Entropy in Abstract Conceptualization by Baboons (Papio papio) and Humans (Homo sapiens)
Published in
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes, January 2001
DOI 10.1037/0097-7403.27.4.316
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Two baboons (Papio papio) successfully learned relational matching-to-sample: They picked the choice display that involved the same relation among 16 pictures (same or different) as the sample display, although the sample display shared no pictures with the choice displays. The baboons generalized relational matching behavior to sample displays created from novel pictures. Further experiments varying the number of sample pictures and the mixture of same and different sample pictures suggested that entropy plays a key role in the baboons' conceptual behavior. Two humans (Homo sapiens) were similarly trained and tested; their behavior was both similar to and different from the baboons' behavior. The results suggest that animals other than humans and chimpanzees can discriminate the relation between relations. They further suggest that entropy detection may underlie same-different conceptualization, but that additional processes may participate in human conceptualization.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Sweden 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 67 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 21%
Researcher 16 21%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 28 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 28%
Computer Science 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 September 2010.
All research outputs
#9,598,403
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes
#28
of 182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,370
of 161,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Behavior Processes
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 161,594 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.