Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds

Overview of attention for article published in Science, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 39,075)
  • 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)

Mentioned by

news
85 news outlets
blogs
26 blogs
twitter
582 tweeters
facebook
65 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
42 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
4 video uploaders

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Oxytocin-gaze positive loop and the coevolution of human-dog bonds
Published in
Science, April 2015
DOI 10.1126/science.1261022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miho Nagasawa, Shouhei Mitsui, Shiori En, Nobuyo Ohtani, Mitsuaki Ohta, Yasuo Sakuma, Tatsushi Onaka, Kazutaka Mogi, Takefumi Kikusui, M. Nagasawa, S. Mitsui, S. En, N. Ohtani, M. Ohta, Y. Sakuma, T. Onaka, K. Mogi, T. Kikusui

Abstract

Human-like modes of communication, including mutual gaze, in dogs may have been acquired during domestication with humans. We show that gazing behavior from dogs, but not wolves, increased urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners, which consequently facilitated owners' affiliation and increased oxytocin concentration in dogs. Further, nasally administered oxytocin increased gazing behavior in dogs, which in turn increased urinary oxytocin concentrations in owners. These findings support the existence of an interspecies oxytocin-mediated positive loop facilitated and modulated by gazing, which may have supported the coevolution of human-dog bonding by engaging common modes of communicating social attachment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 582 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 3 8%
Germany 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Hungary 1 3%
Unknown 29 81%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Professor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 58%
Psychology 6 17%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1377. 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 01 March 2017.
All research outputs
#629
of 7,415,463 outputs
Outputs from Science
#35
of 39,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29
of 189,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#3
of 696 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,415,463 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 39,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.6. 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 189,136 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 696 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.