↓ Skip to main content

Quantity Discrimination in Wolves (Canis lupus)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Quantity Discrimination in Wolves (Canis lupus)
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewelina Utrata, Zsófia Virányi, Friederike Range

Abstract

Quantity discrimination has been studied extensively in different non-human animal species. In the current study, we tested 11 hand-raised wolves (Canis lupus) in a two-way choice task. We placed a number of food items (one to four) sequentially into two opaque cans and asked the wolves to choose the larger amount. Moreover, we conducted two additional control conditions to rule out non-numerical properties of the presentation that the animals might have used to make the correct choice. Our results showed that wolves are able to make quantitative judgments at the group, but also at the individual level even when alternative strategies such as paying attention to the surface area or time and total amount are ruled out. In contrast to previous canine studies on dogs (Canis familiaris) and coyotes (Canis latrans), our wolves' performance did not improve with decreasing ratio, referred to as Weber's law. However, further studies using larger quantities than we used in the current set-up are still needed to determine whether and when wolves' quantity discrimination conforms to Weber's law.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 3 2%
United States 3 2%
Italy 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
United Arab Emirates 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 146 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 34 20%
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 16 9%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 19 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 94 55%
Environmental Science 17 10%
Psychology 15 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 27 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 95. 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 29 December 2014.
All research outputs
#438,581
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#906
of 34,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,310
of 256,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#18
of 480 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 256,285 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 480 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.