↓ Skip to main content

Prosimian Primates Show Ratio Dependence in Spontaneous Quantity Discriminations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Prosimian Primates Show Ratio Dependence in Spontaneous Quantity Discriminations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00550
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah M. Jones, Elizabeth M. Brannon

Abstract

We directly tested the predictions of the approximate number system (ANS) and the object file system in the spontaneous numerical judgments of prosimian primates. Prior work indicates that when human infants and a few species of non-human animals are given a single-trial choice between two sequentially baited buckets they choose the bucket with the greater amount of food but only when the quantities are small. This pattern of results has been interpreted as evidence that a limited capacity object file system is used to track small numbers of objects and that the ANS is not invoked under these circumstances. Here we tested prosimian primates in food choice comparisons that were chosen to contrast predictions of the ANS and object file systems. We found that prosimian primates consistently chose the larger of two sets when they differed by a 1:3 ratio regardless of whether both values were small (≤3), both values were large (>3), or there was one small and one large value. Prosimians were not able to robustly discriminate quantities that differed by a 1:2 ratio for the same three conditions, nor did they show a preference for small quantities that differed by a 2:3 ratio. These results implicate the ANS in the spontaneous numerical discriminations of non-human primates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 8 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 22%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 65%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Unknown 3 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,178
of 29,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,358
of 244,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#356
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,423 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 244,142 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.