↓ Skip to main content

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
  • 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
98 news outlets
blogs
32 blogs
twitter
603 tweeters
facebook
71 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
44 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors
video
5 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
392 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 603 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 392 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
United Kingdom 7 2%
Canada 6 2%
Japan 5 1%
France 4 1%
Austria 4 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 344 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 80 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 20%
Student > Bachelor 63 16%
Student > Master 47 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 100 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 149 38%
Psychology 63 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 8%
Neuroscience 27 7%
Unspecified 26 7%
Other 94 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1528. 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 22 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,120
of 12,152,352 outputs
Outputs from Science
#81
of 54,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26
of 202,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#4
of 681 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,152,352 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 54,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.4. 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 202,900 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 681 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.