↓ Skip to main content

The foot of Homo naledi

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, October 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
61 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
189 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The foot of Homo naledi
Published in
Nature Communications, October 2015
DOI 10.1038/ncomms9432
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. E. H. Harcourt-Smith, Z. Throckmorton, K. A. Congdon, B. Zipfel, A. S. Deane, M. S. M. Drapeau, S. E. Churchill, L. R. Berger, J. M. DeSilva

Abstract

Modern humans are characterized by a highly specialized foot that reflects our obligate bipedalism. Our understanding of hominin foot evolution is, although, hindered by a paucity of well-associated remains. Here we describe the foot of Homo naledi from Dinaledi Chamber, South Africa, using 107 pedal elements, including one nearly-complete adult foot. The H. naledi foot is predominantly modern human-like in morphology and inferred function, with an adducted hallux, an elongated tarsus, and derived ankle and calcaneocuboid joints. In combination, these features indicate a foot well adapted for striding bipedalism. However, the H. naledi foot differs from modern humans in having more curved proximal pedal phalanges, and features suggestive of a reduced medial longitudinal arch. Within the context of primitive features found elsewhere in the skeleton, these findings suggest a unique locomotor repertoire for H. naledi, thus providing further evidence of locomotor diversity within both the hominin clade and the genus Homo.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 189 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Canada 3 2%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 164 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 19%
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 16 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 27%
Social Sciences 27 15%
Arts and Humanities 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Other 35 20%
Unknown 28 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 671. 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 27 March 2021.
All research outputs
#19,053
of 19,169,076 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#313
of 38,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238
of 262,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#7
of 1,462 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,169,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 38,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 53.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 262,928 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,462 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 99% of its contemporaries.