↓ Skip to main content

Symmetry Restoring Bifurcation in Collective Decision-Making

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Symmetry Restoring Bifurcation in Collective Decision-Making
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003960
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalia Zabzina, Audrey Dussutour, Richard P. Mann, David J. T. Sumpter, Stamatios C. Nicolis

Abstract

How social groups and organisms decide between alternative feeding sites or shelters has been extensively studied both experimentally and theoretically. One key result is the existence of a symmetry-breaking bifurcation at a critical system size, where there is a switch from evenly distributed exploitation of all options to a focussed exploitation of just one. Here we present a decision-making model in which symmetry-breaking is followed by a symmetry restoring bifurcation, whereby very large systems return to an even distribution of exploitation amongst options. The model assumes local positive feedback, coupled with a negative feedback regulating the flow toward the feeding sites. We show that the model is consistent with three different strains of the slime mold Physarum polycephalum, choosing between two feeding sites. We argue that this combination of feedbacks could allow collective foraging organisms to react flexibly in a dynamic environment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Belgium 1 3%
Unknown 35 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 33%
Researcher 6 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 3 8%
Other 10 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 51%
Computer Science 5 13%
Physics and Astronomy 5 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 5 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,046,281
of 13,526,311 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#1,289
of 5,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,293
of 297,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#31
of 126 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,526,311 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 297,887 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 91% 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 well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.