↓ Skip to main content

Difference in quantity discrimination in dogs and wolves

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 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
Difference in quantity discrimination in dogs and wolves
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01299
Pubmed ID
Authors

Friederike Range, Julia Jenikejew, Isabelle Schröder, Zsófia Virányi

Abstract

Certain aspects of social life, such as engaging in intergroup conflicts, as well as challenges posed by the physical environment, may facilitate the evolution of quantity discrimination. In lack of excessive comparative data, one can only hypothesize about its evolutionary origins, but human-raised wolves performed well when they had to choose the larger of two sets of 1-4 food items that had been sequentially placed into two opaque cans. Since in such paradigms, the animals never see the entire content of either can, their decisions are thought to rely on mental representation of the two quantities rather than on some perceptual factors such as the overall volume or surface area of the two amounts. By equaling the time that it takes to enter each quantity into the cans or the number of items entered, one can further rule out the possibility that animals simply choose based on the amount of time needed to present the two quantities. While the wolves performed well even in such a control condition, dogs failed to choose the larger one of two invisible quantities in another study using a similar paradigm. Because this disparity could be explained by procedural differences, in the current study, we set out to test dogs that were raised and kept identically as the previously tested wolves using the same set-up and procedure. Our results confirm the former finding that dogs, in comparison to wolves, have inferior skills to represent quantities mentally. This seems to be in line with Frank's (1980) hypothesis suggesting that domestication altered the information processing of dogs. However, as discussed, also alternative explanations may exist.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Austria 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 82 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 30%
Psychology 16 18%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 6%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 115. 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 15 December 2020.
All research outputs
#303,746
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#621
of 29,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,850
of 362,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#10
of 349 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 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 29,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 362,492 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 349 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 97% of its contemporaries.