↓ Skip to main content

Spontaneous Emergence, Imitation and Spread of Alternative Foraging Techniques among Groups of Vervet Monkeys

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, October 2012
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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
Spontaneous Emergence, Imitation and Spread of Alternative Foraging Techniques among Groups of Vervet Monkeys
Published in
PLOS ONE, October 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0047008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erica van de Waal, Andrew Whiten

Abstract

Animal social learning has become a subject of broad interest, but demonstrations of bodily imitation in animals remain rare. Based on Voelkl and Huber's study of imitation by marmosets, we tested four groups of semi-captive vervet monkeys presented with food in modified film canisters ("aethipops'). One individual was trained to take the tops off canisters in each group and demonstrated five openings to them. In three groups these models used their mouth to remove the lid, but in one of the groups the model also spontaneously pulled ropes on a canister to open it. In the last group the model preferred to remove the lid with her hands. Following these spontaneous differentiations of foraging techniques in the models, we observed the techniques used by the other group members to open the canisters. We found that mouth opening was the most common technique overall, but the rope and hands methods were used significantly more in groups they were demonstrated in than in groups where they were not. Our results show bodily matching that is conventionally described as imitation. We discuss the relevance of these findings to discoveries about mirror neurons, and implications of the identity of the model for social transmission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Austria 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 80 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 26%
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 46%
Psychology 14 16%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 02 May 2013.
All research outputs
#3,143,364
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#40,030
of 218,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,091
of 180,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#672
of 4,576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 218,310 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 180,374 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,576 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.