↓ Skip to main content

Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs

Overview of attention for article published in Science, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 55,141)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
253 news outlets
blogs
23 blogs
twitter
401 tweeters
facebook
27 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Neural mechanisms for lexical processing in dogs
Published in
Science, August 2016
DOI 10.1126/science.aaf3777
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Andics, A. Gábor, M. Gácsi, T. Faragó, D. Szabó, Á. Miklósi

Abstract

During speech processing, human listeners can separately analyze lexical and intonational cues to arrive at a unified representation of communicative content. The evolution of this capacity can be best investigated by comparative studies. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we explored whether and how dog brains segregate and integrate lexical and intonational information. We found a left-hemisphere bias for processing meaningful words, independently of intonation; a right auditory brain region for distinguishing intonationally marked and unmarked words; and increased activity in primary reward regions only when both lexical and intonational information were consistent with praise. Neural mechanisms to separately analyze and integrate word meaning and intonation in dogs suggest that this capacity can evolve in the absence of language.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 401 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Austria 3 1%
Hungary 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 256 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 76 27%
Researcher 62 22%
Student > Bachelor 33 12%
Student > Master 33 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 5%
Other 59 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 75 27%
Psychology 65 23%
Neuroscience 34 12%
Unspecified 23 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Other 70 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2453. 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 November 2018.
All research outputs
#348
of 12,288,768 outputs
Outputs from Science
#27
of 55,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14
of 262,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#2
of 957 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,288,768 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 262,699 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 957 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 99% of its contemporaries.