↓ Skip to main content

Corvid Re-Caching without ‘Theory of Mind’: A Model

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Corvid Re-Caching without ‘Theory of Mind’: A Model
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032904
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elske van der Vaart, Rineke Verbrugge, Charlotte K. Hemelrijk

Abstract

Scrub jays are thought to use many tactics to protect their caches. For instance, they predominantly bury food far away from conspecifics, and if they must cache while being watched, they often re-cache their worms later, once they are in private. Two explanations have been offered for such observations, and they are intensely debated. First, the birds may reason about their competitors' mental states, with a 'theory of mind'; alternatively, they may apply behavioral rules learned in daily life. Although this second hypothesis is cognitively simpler, it does seem to require a different, ad-hoc behavioral rule for every caching and re-caching pattern exhibited by the birds. Our new theory avoids this drawback by explaining a large variety of patterns as side-effects of stress and the resulting memory errors. Inspired by experimental data, we assume that re-caching is not motivated by a deliberate effort to safeguard specific caches from theft, but by a general desire to cache more. This desire is brought on by stress, which is determined by the presence and dominance of onlookers, and by unsuccessful recovery attempts. We study this theory in two experiments similar to those done with real birds with a kind of 'virtual bird', whose behavior depends on a set of basic assumptions about corvid cognition, and a well-established model of human memory. Our results show that the 'virtual bird' acts as the real birds did; its re-caching reflects whether it has been watched, how dominant its onlooker was, and how close to that onlooker it has cached. This happens even though it cannot attribute mental states, and it has only a single behavioral rule assumed to be previously learned. Thus, our simulations indicate that corvid re-caching can be explained without sophisticated social cognition. Given our specific predictions, our theory can easily be tested empirically.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 171 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 18%
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 20 11%
Professor 15 8%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 24 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 41%
Psychology 44 24%
Environmental Science 8 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Linguistics 3 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 29 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 10 June 2016.
All research outputs
#631,735
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#8,857
of 195,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,978
of 156,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#124
of 3,553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 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 195,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. 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 156,371 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 3,553 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 96% of its contemporaries.