↓ Skip to main content

Dogs (Canis familiaris), but Not Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Understand Imperative Pointing

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
8 blogs
twitter
28 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Dogs (Canis familiaris), but Not Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), Understand Imperative Pointing
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030913
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina C. Kirchhofer, Felizitas Zimmermann, Juliane Kaminski, Michael Tomasello

Abstract

Chimpanzees routinely follow the gaze of humans to outside targets. However, in most studies using object choice they fail to use communicative gestures (e.g. pointing) to find hidden food. Chimpanzees' failure to do this may be due to several difficulties with this paradigm. They may, for example, misinterpret the gesture as referring to the opaque cup instead of the hidden food. Or perhaps they do not understand informative communicative intentions. In contrast, dogs seem to be skilful in using human communicative cues in the context of finding food, but as of yet there is not much data showing whether they also use pointing in the context of finding non-food objects. Here we directly compare chimpanzees' (N = 20) and dogs' (N = 32) skills in using a communicative gesture directed at a visible object out of reach of the human but within reach of the subject. Pairs of objects were placed in view of and behind the subjects. The task was to retrieve the object the experimenter wanted. To indicate which one she desired, the experimenter pointed imperatively to it and directly rewarded the subject for handing over the correct one. While dogs performed well on this task, chimpanzees failed to identify the referent. Implications for great apes' and dogs' understanding of human communicative intentions are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Austria 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 159 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 24 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 33%
Psychology 41 24%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 9 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 33 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 175. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#233,046
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#3,394
of 223,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,211
of 255,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#35
of 3,424 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 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 223,967 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 255,364 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 3,424 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 98% of its contemporaries.