↓ Skip to main content

Learning in Plants: Lessons from Mimosa pudica

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
23 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 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
Learning in Plants: Lessons from Mimosa pudica
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00417
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles I. Abramson, Ana M. Chicas-Mosier

Abstract

This article provides an overview of the early Mimosa pudica literature; much of which is in journals not easily accessible to the reader. In contrast to the contemporary plant learning literature which is conducted primarily by plant biologists, this early literature was conducted by comparative psychologists whose goal was to search for the generality of learning phenomena such as habituation, and classical conditioning using experimental designs based on animal conditioning studies. In addition to reviewing the early literature, we hope to encourage collaborations between plant biologists and comparative psychologists by familiarizing the reader with issues in the study of learning faced by those working with animals. These issues include no consistent definition of learning phenomena and an overreliance on the use of cognition. We suggested that greater collaborative efforts be made between plant biologists and comparative psychologists if the study of plant learning is to be fully intergraded into the mainstream behavior theory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Hungary 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Estonia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 152 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Master 19 12%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 11 7%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 47 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 23%
Psychology 17 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Engineering 5 3%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 56 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 11 January 2024.
All research outputs
#553,345
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,158
of 34,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,966
of 316,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#22
of 462 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 316,288 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 462 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 95% of its contemporaries.