↓ Skip to main content

Convergence and divergence in Diana monkey vocalizations

Overview of attention for article published in Biology Letters, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Convergence and divergence in Diana monkey vocalizations
Published in
Biology Letters, January 2012
DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2011.1182
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Individually distinct vocalizations are widespread among social animals, presumably caused by variation in vocal tract anatomy. A less-explored source of individual variation is due to learned movement patterns of the vocal tract, which can lead to vocal convergence or divergence in social groups. We studied patterns of acoustic similarity in a social call produced by 14 female Diana monkeys (Cercopithecus diana) in two free-ranging groups. Calls showed variability in fundamental frequency contours owing to individual identity and external context. Vocal divergence increased significantly between females during poor visibility and tended to increase in the presence of neighbours. In contrast, vocal convergence increased significantly between females during vocal interactions, because females matched the frequency contour of their own call with another female's preceding call. Our findings demonstrate that these primates have some control over the acoustic fine structure of their most important social vocalization. Vocal convergence and divergence are two opposing processes that enable callers to ensure spatial proximity and social cohesion with other group members.

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.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 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 2 2%
Hungary 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 99 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 28%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 6 6%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 51%
Psychology 12 11%
Environmental Science 6 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 21 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 11 February 2012.
All research outputs
#19,017,658
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Biology Letters
#3,091
of 3,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,496
of 247,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biology Letters
#46
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,275 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.3. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 247,059 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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.