↓ Skip to main content

Quantity Discrimination in Trained Lizards (Podarcis sicula)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
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 (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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 Trained Lizards (Podarcis sicula)
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Elena Miletto Petrazzini, Cristiano Bertolucci, Augusto Foà

Abstract

Quantitative abilities have been reported in many animal species. Two main methods have been extensively used: spontaneous choice tests and training procedures. A recent study showed that ruin lizards are capable of spontaneously discriminating between the surface area of two food items of different size, but failed when food was presented in sets of discrete items differing in number. In the present study, we used a training procedure to further investigate quantitative abilities in ruin lizards. Subjects were presented with two sets of yellow disks differing either in number (Experiment 1) or in area (Experiment 2) and were trained on different discriminations of increasing difficulty (1 vs. 4, 2 vs. 4, and 2 vs. 3). Results showed that lizards were more accurate in discriminating sets of discrete items differing in number than the area of two individual items, in contrast to what had earlier been observed in spontaneous choice tests. Although we cannot exclude other factors that affected the performance of ruin lizards, the poor accuracy here observed in both experiments might reflect a true limit in lizards' quantitative abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 16%
Psychology 4 13%
Environmental Science 3 9%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 12 38%
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 05 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,787,263
of 23,937,668 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#3,607
of 31,908 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,232
of 335,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#96
of 576 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,937,668 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 31,908 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,480 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 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 83% of its contemporaries.