↓ 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 (#19 of 53,138)
  • 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
250 news outlets
blogs
22 blogs
twitter
407 tweeters
facebook
26 Facebook pages
googleplus
6 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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, Andics, A, Gábor, A, Gácsi, M, Faragó, T, Szabó, D, Miklósi, Á, A. Gabor, M. Gacsi, T. Farago, D. Szabo, A. Miklosi

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 407 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
United Kingdom 6 2%
Austria 3 1%
France 2 <1%
Hungary 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 221 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 26%
Researcher 59 24%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Student > Master 27 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 52 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 66 27%
Psychology 58 24%
Neuroscience 29 12%
Unspecified 22 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 4%
Other 59 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2426. 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 20 September 2018.
All research outputs
#320
of 11,804,455 outputs
Outputs from Science
#19
of 53,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14
of 259,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#2
of 931 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,804,455 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 53,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.5. 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 259,629 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 931 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.