↓ Skip to main content

Word Generalization by a Dog (Canis familiaris): Is Shape Important?

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
37 X users
facebook
18 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Word Generalization by a Dog (Canis familiaris): Is Shape Important?
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049382
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emile van der Zee, Helen Zulch, Daniel Mills

Abstract

We investigated the presence of a key feature of human word comprehension in a five year old Border Collie: the generalization of a word referring to an object to other objects of the same shape, also known as shape bias. Our first experiment confirmed a solid history of word learning in the dog, thus making it possible for certain object features to have become central in his word comprehension. Using an experimental paradigm originally employed to establish shape bias in children and human adults we taught the dog arbitrary object names (e.g. dax) for novel objects. Two experiments showed that when briefly familiarized with word-object mappings the dog did not generalize object names to object shape but to object size. A fourth experiment showed that when familiarized with a word-object mapping for a longer period of time the dog tended to generalize the word to objects with the same texture. These results show that the dog tested did not display human-like word comprehension, but word generalization and word reference development of a qualitatively different nature compared to humans. We conclude that a shape bias for word generalization in humans is due to the distinct evolutionary history of the human sensory system for object identification and that more research is necessary to confirm qualitative differences in word generalization between humans and dogs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 2%
Hungary 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 109 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Other 13 11%
Student > Master 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 26%
Psychology 25 21%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 7%
Linguistics 3 2%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 26 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 110. 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 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#389,624
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#5,501
of 224,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,498
of 287,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#91
of 4,695 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,606 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 287,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,695 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.