Testicular volume is inversely correlated with nurturing-related brain activity in human fathers

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2013
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 (99th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
207 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Testicular volume is inversely correlated with nurturing-related brain activity in human fathers
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2013
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1305579110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer S. Mascaro, Patrick D. Hackett, James K. Rilling, Mascaro JS, Hackett PD, Rilling JK

Abstract

Despite the well-documented benefits afforded the children of invested fathers in modern Western societies, some fathers choose not to invest in their children. Why do some men make this choice? Life History Theory offers an explanation for variation in parental investment by positing a trade-off between mating and parenting effort, which may explain some of the observed variance in human fathers' parenting behavior. We tested this hypothesis by measuring aspects of reproductive biology related to mating effort, as well as paternal nurturing behavior and the brain activity related to it. Both plasma testosterone levels and testes volume were independently inversely correlated with paternal caregiving. In response to viewing pictures of one's own child, activity in the ventral tegmental area--a key component of the mesolimbic dopamine reward and motivation system--predicted paternal caregiving and was negatively related to testes volume. Our results suggest that the biology of human males reflects a trade-off between mating effort and parenting effort, as indexed by testicular size and nurturing-related brain function, respectively.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 428 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 4%
United Kingdom 7 3%
Germany 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Czech Republic 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 163 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 29%
Researcher 39 19%
Student > Bachelor 34 16%
Student > Master 17 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 8%
Other 41 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 83 40%
Psychology 59 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Other 24 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 851. 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 03 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,987
of 7,429,247 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#84
of 43,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36
of 130,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#1
of 874 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,429,247 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 43,975 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. 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 130,796 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 874 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.