↓ Skip to main content

Do Chimpanzees Use Weight to Select Hammer Tools?

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Do Chimpanzees Use Weight to Select Hammer Tools?
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0041044
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cornelia Schrauf, Josep Call, Koki Fuwa, Satoshi Hirata

Abstract

The extent to which tool-using animals take into account relevant task parameters is poorly understood. Nut cracking is one of the most complex forms of tool use, the choice of an adequate hammer being a critical aspect in success. Several properties make a hammer suitable for nut cracking, with weight being a key factor in determining the impact of a strike; in general, the greater the weight the fewer strikes required. This study experimentally investigated whether chimpanzees are able to encode the relevance of weight as a property of hammers to crack open nuts. By presenting chimpanzees with three hammers that differed solely in weight, we assessed their ability to relate the weight of the different tools with their effectiveness and thus select the most effective one(s). Our results show that chimpanzees use weight alone in selecting tools to crack open nuts and that experience clearly affects the subjects' attentiveness to the tool properties that are relevant for the task at hand. Chimpanzees can encode the requirements that a nut-cracking tool should meet (in terms of weight) to be effective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Thailand 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 44 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Other 4 8%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 6 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 36%
Psychology 11 22%
Social Sciences 7 14%
Arts and Humanities 3 6%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#716,687
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,051
of 193,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,798
of 163,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#141
of 4,020 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 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 193,517 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 94% 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 163,884 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 4,020 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.