↓ Skip to main content

Pioneering Studies on Cephalopod's Eye and Vision at the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn (1883-1977)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Pioneering Studies on Cephalopod's Eye and Vision at the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn (1883-1977)
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00618
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ariane Dröscher

Abstract

From the late nineteenth century onwards, the phenomena of vision and the anatomy and physiology of the eye of marine animals induced many zoologists, ethologists, physiologists, anatomists, biochemists, and ophthalmologists to travel to the Zoological Station in Naples. Initially, their preferred research objects were fish, but it soon became evident that cephalopods have features which make them particularly suited to research. After the first studies, which outlined the anatomical structure of cephalopods' eyes and optic nerves, the research rapidly shifted to the electrophysiology and biochemistry of vision. In the twentieth century these results were integrated with behavioral tests and training techniques. Between 1909 and 1913 also the well-known debate on color vision between ophthalmologist Carl von Hess and zoologist Karl von Frisch took place in Naples. Largely unknown is that the debate also concerned cephalopods. A comparative historical analysis of these studies shows how different experimental devices, theoretical frameworks, and personal factors gave rise to two diametrically opposing views.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 17%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,667,234
of 22,919,505 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#905
of 13,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,720
of 420,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#21
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,919,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 420,056 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 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 90% of its contemporaries.