↓ Skip to main content

An Experimental Test of the Accumulated Copying Error Model of Cultural Mutation for Acheulean Handaxe Size

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
An Experimental Test of the Accumulated Copying Error Model of Cultural Mutation for Acheulean Handaxe Size
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0048333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marius Kempe, Stephen Lycett, Alex Mesoudi

Abstract

Archaeologists interested in explaining changes in artifact morphology over long time periods have found it useful to create models in which the only source of change is random and unintentional copying error, or 'cultural mutation'. These models can be used as null hypotheses against which to detect non-random processes such as cultural selection or biased transmission. One proposed cultural mutation model is the accumulated copying error model, where individuals attempt to copy the size of another individual's artifact exactly but make small random errors due to physiological limits on the accuracy of their perception. Here, we first derive the model within an explicit mathematical framework, generating the predictions that multiple independently-evolving artifact chains should diverge over time such that their between-chain variance increases while the mean artifact size remains constant. We then present the first experimental test of this model in which 200 participants, split into 20 transmission chains, were asked to faithfully copy the size of the previous participant's handaxe image on an iPad. The experimental findings supported the model's prediction that between-chain variance should increase over time and did so in a manner quantitatively in line with the model. However, when the initial size of the image that the participants resized was larger than the size of the image they were copying, subjects tended to increase the size of the image, resulting in the mean size increasing rather than staying constant. This suggests that items of material culture formed by reductive vs. additive processes may mutate differently when individuals attempt to replicate faithfully the size of previously-produced artifacts. Finally, we show that a dataset of 2601 Acheulean handaxes shows less variation than predicted given our empirically measured copying error variance, suggesting that other processes counteracted the variation in handaxe size generated by perceptual cultural mutation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 25%
Researcher 14 16%
Professor 10 11%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Arts and Humanities 23 26%
Social Sciences 17 19%
Psychology 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 20 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,377,133
of 25,874,560 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#93,671
of 225,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,417
of 199,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,228
of 4,918 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,874,560 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 199,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,918 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.