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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Environmental Influence on the Evolution of Morphological Complexity in Machines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003399 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua E. Auerbach, Josh C. Bongard |
| Abstract |
Whether, when, how, and why increased complexity evolves in biological populations is a longstanding open question. In this work we combine a recently developed method for evolving virtual organisms with an information-theoretic metric of morphological complexity in order to investigate how the complexity of morphologies, which are evolved for locomotion, varies across different environments. We first demonstrate that selection for locomotion results in the evolution of organisms with morphologies that increase in complexity over evolutionary time beyond what would be expected due to random chance. This provides evidence that the increase in complexity observed is a result of a driven rather than a passive trend. In subsequent experiments we demonstrate that morphologies having greater complexity evolve in complex environments, when compared to a simple environment when a cost of complexity is imposed. This suggests that in some niches, evolution may act to complexify the body plans of organisms while in other niches selection favors simpler body plans. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 12% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Mexico | 1 | 6% |
| China | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 76% |
| Scientists | 4 | 24% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 112 | 90% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 24% |
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 9% |
| Professor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 43 | 34% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 15% |
| Engineering | 18 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 14 December 2018.
All research outputs
#607,870
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#446
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,164
of 319,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#5
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 319,345 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 126 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 96% of its contemporaries.