↓ Skip to main content

Representational format determines numerical competence in monkeys

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Representational format determines numerical competence in monkeys
Published in
Nature Communications, March 2011
DOI 10.1038/ncomms1262
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa Schmitt, Julia Fischer

Abstract

A range of animal species possess an evolutionarily ancient system for representing number, which provides the foundation for simple arithmetical operations such as addition and numerical comparisons. Surprisingly, non-human primates tested in ecologically, highly valid quantity discrimination tasks using edible items often show a relatively low performance, suggesting that stimulus salience interferes with rational decision making. Here we show that quantity discrimination was indeed significantly enhanced when monkeys were tested with inedible items compared with food items (84 versus 69% correct). More importantly, when monkeys were tested with food, but rewarded with other food items, the accuracy was equally high (86%). The results indicate that the internal representation of the stimuli, not their physical quality, determined performance. Reward replacement apparently facilitated representation of the food items as signifiers for other foods, which in turn supported a higher acuity in decision making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 2 3%
Germany 2 3%
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 2 3%
Austria 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Unknown 59 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 30%
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 43%
Psychology 23 33%
Computer Science 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 8 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 05 August 2011.
All research outputs
#3,063,399
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#5,897
of 6,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,144
of 58,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#61
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 58,485 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.