↓ Skip to main content

A history-based method to estimate animal preference

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
A history-based method to estimate animal preference
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2016
DOI 10.1038/srep28328
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline Marques Maia, Gilson Luiz Volpato

Abstract

Giving animals their preferred items (e.g., environmental enrichment) has been suggested as a method to improve animal welfare, thus raising the question of how to determine what animals want. Most studies have employed choice tests for detecting animal preferences. However, whether choice tests represent animal preferences remains a matter of controversy. Here, we present a history-based method to analyse data from individual choice tests to discriminate between preferred and non-preferred items. This method differentially weighs choices from older and recent tests performed over time. Accordingly, we provide both a preference index that identifies preferred items contrasted with non-preferred items in successive multiple-choice tests and methods to detect the strength of animal preferences for each item. We achieved this goal by investigating colour choices in the Nile tilapia fish species.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Unknown 72 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 38%
Unspecified 5 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 7%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 18 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#1,094,094
of 12,852,852 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#9,500
of 60,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,446
of 260,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#374
of 2,520 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,852,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 60,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 260,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,520 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.