↓ Skip to main content

Honeybees can discriminate between Monet and Picasso paintings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#5 of 1,551)
  • 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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Honeybees can discriminate between Monet and Picasso paintings
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00359-012-0767-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wen Wu, Antonio M. Moreno, Jason M. Tangen, Judith Reinhard

Abstract

Honeybees (Apis mellifera) have remarkable visual learning and discrimination abilities that extend beyond learning simple colours, shapes or patterns. They can discriminate landscape scenes, types of flowers, and even human faces. This suggests that in spite of their small brain, honeybees have a highly developed capacity for processing complex visual information, comparable in many respects to vertebrates. Here, we investigated whether this capacity extends to complex images that humans distinguish on the basis of artistic style: Impressionist paintings by Monet and Cubist paintings by Picasso. We show that honeybees learned to simultaneously discriminate between five different Monet and Picasso paintings, and that they do not rely on luminance, colour, or spatial frequency information for discrimination. When presented with novel paintings of the same style, the bees even demonstrated some ability to generalize. This suggests that honeybees are able to discriminate Monet paintings from Picasso ones by extracting and learning the characteristic visual information inherent in each painting style. Our study further suggests that discrimination of artistic styles is not a higher cognitive function that is unique to humans, but simply due to the capacity of animals-from insects to humans-to extract and categorize the visual characteristics of complex images.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 7 6%
United States 4 3%
Australia 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 104 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 23%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Professor 5 4%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 47%
Psychology 15 13%
Neuroscience 10 8%
Environmental Science 6 5%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 14 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 346. 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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#94,598
of 25,446,666 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#5
of 1,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#417
of 193,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#1
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,446,666 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 1,551 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. 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 193,863 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 30 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.