↓ Skip to main content

Segmental concatenation of individual signatures and context cues in banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) close calls

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Biology, December 2012
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Segmental concatenation of individual signatures and context cues in banded mongoose (Mungos mungo) close calls
Published in
BMC Biology, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7007-10-97
Pubmed ID
Authors

David AWAM Jansen, Michael A Cant, Marta B Manser

Abstract

All animals are anatomically constrained in the number of discrete call types they can produce. Recent studies suggest that by combining existing calls into meaningful sequences, animals can increase the information content of their vocal repertoire despite these constraints. Additionally, signalers can use vocal signatures or cues correlated to other individual traits or contexts to increase the information encoded in their vocalizations. However, encoding multiple vocal signatures or cues using the same components of vocalizations usually reduces the signals' reliability. Segregation of information could effectively circumvent this trade-off. In this study we investigate how banded mongooses (Mungos mungo) encode multiple vocal signatures or cues in their frequently emitted graded single syllable close calls.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 102 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Master 19 18%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 50%
Psychology 9 9%
Environmental Science 8 8%
Linguistics 4 4%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 22 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,135,333
of 16,760,518 outputs
Outputs from BMC Biology
#342
of 1,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,404
of 260,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Biology
#26
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,760,518 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 1,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 260,377 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.