↓ Skip to main content

Tracking Changing Environments: Innovators Are Fast, but Not Flexible Learners

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Tracking Changing Environments: Innovators Are Fast, but Not Flexible Learners
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0084907
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea S. Griffin, David Guez, Françoise Lermite, Madeleine Patience

Abstract

Behavioural innovations are increasingly thought to provide a rich source of phenotypic plasticity and evolutionary change. Innovation propensity shows substantial variation across avian taxa and provides an adaptive mechanism by which behaviour is flexibly adjusted to changing environmental conditions. Here, we tested for the first time the prediction that inter-individual variation in innovation propensity is equally a measure of behavioural flexibility. We used Indian mynas, Sturnus tristis, a highly successful worldwide invader. Results revealed that mynas that solved an extractive foraging task more quickly learnt to discriminate between a cue that predicted food, and one that did not more quickly. However, fast innovators were slower to change their behaviour when the significance of the food cues changed. This unexpected finding appears at odds with the well-established view that avian taxa with larger brains relative to their body size, and therefore greater neural processing power, are both faster, and more flexible learners. We speculate that the existence of this relationship across taxa can be reconciled with its absence within species by assuming that fast, innovative learners and non innovative, slow, flexible learners constitute two separate individual strategies, which are both underpinned by enhanced neural processing power. This idea is consistent with the recent proposal that individuals may differ consistently in 'cognitive style', differentially trading off speed against accuracy in cognitive tasks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Austria 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 161 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 29%
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 22 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 89 52%
Psychology 17 10%
Environmental Science 11 6%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 30 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 08 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,955,606
of 24,364,603 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#24,488
of 210,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,538
of 314,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#680
of 5,419 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,364,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 314,563 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,419 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.