↓ Skip to main content

Rats prefer mutual rewards in a prosocial choice task

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
19 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 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
Rats prefer mutual rewards in a prosocial choice task
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00443
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julen Hernandez-Lallement, Marijn van Wingerden, Christine Marx, Milan Srejic, Tobias Kalenscher

Abstract

Pro-sociality, i.e., the preference for outcomes that produce benefits for other individuals, is ubiquitous in humans. Recently, cross-species comparisons of social behavior have offered important new insights into the evolution of pro-sociality. Here, we present a rodent analog of the Pro-social Choice Task that controls strategic components, de-confounds other-regarding choice motives from the animals' natural tendencies to maximize own food access and directly tests the effect of social context on choice allocation. We trained pairs of rats-an actor and a partner rat-in a double T-maze task where actors decided between two alternatives only differing in the reward delivered to the partner. The "own reward" choice yielded a reward only accessible to the actor whereas the "both reward" choice produced an additional reward for a partner (partner condition) or an inanimate toy (toy Condition), located in an adjacent compartment. We found that actors chose "both reward" at levels above chance and more often in the partner than in the toy condition. Moreover, we show that this choice pattern adapts to the current social context and that the observed behavior is stable over time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 171 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 18%
Researcher 29 16%
Student > Master 28 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 28 16%
Unknown 23 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 46 26%
Psychology 39 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 37 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 09 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,775,770
of 25,550,333 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#913
of 11,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,803
of 378,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#18
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,550,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,611 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 378,347 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.