| Title |
A history-based method to estimate animal preference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1038/srep28328 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Marques Maia, Gilson Luiz Volpato |
| Abstract |
Giving animals their preferred items (e.g., environmental enrichment) has been suggested as a method to improve animal welfare, thus raising the question of how to determine what animals want. Most studies have employed choice tests for detecting animal preferences. However, whether choice tests represent animal preferences remains a matter of controversy. Here, we present a history-based method to analyse data from individual choice tests to discriminate between preferred and non-preferred items. This method differentially weighs choices from older and recent tests performed over time. Accordingly, we provide both a preference index that identifies preferred items contrasted with non-preferred items in successive multiple-choice tests and methods to detect the strength of animal preferences for each item. We achieved this goal by investigating colour choices in the Nile tilapia fish species. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Senegal | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 89 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 33% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 7% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 6 | 7% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 30 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#2,255,022
of 22,879,161 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#19,898
of 123,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,696
of 351,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#605
of 3,731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,879,161 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 123,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 351,565 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,731 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.