↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Evidence for Two Numerical Systems That Are Similar in Humans and Guppies

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

news
17 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
16 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Evidence for Two Numerical Systems That Are Similar in Humans and Guppies
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0031923
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Agrillo, Laura Piffer, Angelo Bisazza, Brian Butterworth

Abstract

Humans and non-human animals share an approximate non-verbal system for representing and comparing numerosities that has no upper limit and for which accuracy is dependent on the numerical ratio. Current evidence indicates that the mechanism for keeping track of individual objects can also be used for numerical purposes; if so, its accuracy will be independent of numerical ratio, but its capacity is limited to the number of items that can be tracked, about four. There is, however, growing controversy as to whether two separate number systems are present in other vertebrate species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 180 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 21%
Researcher 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Master 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 34 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 64 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 20%
Neuroscience 12 6%
Environmental Science 5 3%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 49 26%