↓ Skip to main content

Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2011
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
227 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
284 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Inferring the rules of interaction of shoaling fish
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2011
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1109355108
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. E. Herbert-Read, A. Perna, R. P. Mann, T. M. Schaerf, D. J. T. Sumpter, A. J. W. Ward

Abstract

Collective motion, where large numbers of individuals move synchronously together, is achieved when individuals adopt interaction rules that determine how they respond to their neighbors' movements and positions. These rules determine how group-living animals move, make decisions, and transmit information between individuals. Nonetheless, few studies have explicitly determined these interaction rules in moving groups, and very little is known about the interaction rules of fish. Here, we identify three key rules for the social interactions of mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki): (i) Attraction forces are important in maintaining group cohesion, while we find only weak evidence that fish align with their neighbor's orientation; (ii) repulsion is mediated principally by changes in speed; (iii) although the positions and directions of all shoal members are highly correlated, individuals only respond to their single nearest neighbor. The last two of these rules are different from the classical models of collective animal motion, raising new questions about how fish and other animals self-organize on the move.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 9 3%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
China 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 257 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 28%
Researcher 51 18%
Student > Bachelor 40 14%
Student > Master 38 13%
Unspecified 14 5%
Other 69 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 128 45%
Physics and Astronomy 41 14%
Engineering 28 10%
Unspecified 26 9%
Computer Science 19 7%
Other 50 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 30 May 2019.
All research outputs
#464,682
of 13,434,955 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#9,215
of 80,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,884
of 108,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#69
of 730 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,434,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80,203 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 108,675 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 730 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 90% of its contemporaries.