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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cognitive Processes Associated with Sequential Tool Use in New Caledonian Crows
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, August 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0006471 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna H. Wimpenny, Alex A. S. Weir, Lisa Clayton, Christian Rutz, Alex Kacelnik |
| Abstract |
Using tools to act on non-food objects--for example, to make other tools--is considered to be a hallmark of human intelligence, and may have been a crucial step in our evolution. One form of this behaviour, 'sequential tool use', has been observed in a number of non-human primates and even in one bird, the New Caledonian crow (Corvus moneduloides). While sequential tool use has often been interpreted as evidence for advanced cognitive abilities, such as planning and analogical reasoning, the behaviour itself can be underpinned by a range of different cognitive mechanisms, which have never been explicitly examined. Here, we present experiments that not only demonstrate new tool-using capabilities in New Caledonian crows, but allow examination of the extent to which crows understand the physical interactions involved. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 3% |
| Germany | 3 | 1% |
| Canada | 3 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Argentina | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 100 | 43% |
| Psychology | 40 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 12% |
| Unknown | 40 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 May 2022.
All research outputs
#660,035
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#9,351
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,674
of 110,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#26
of 503 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 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 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 110,749 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 503 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 94% of its contemporaries.