↓ Skip to main content

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
212 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 420 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 212 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 6 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 169 80%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 29%
Researcher 39 18%
Student > Bachelor 36 17%
Student > Master 17 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 8%
Other 43 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 84 40%
Psychology 61 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Social Sciences 13 6%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Other 26 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 844. 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 09 June 2017.
All research outputs
#2,367
of 7,931,175 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#97
of 45,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37
of 133,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#1
of 875 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,931,175 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 45,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. 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 133,216 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 875 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.