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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Animal studies help clarify misunderstandings about neonatal imitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavioral & Brain Sciences, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s0140525x16001965 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth A. Simpson, Sarah E. Maylott, Mikael Heimann, Francys Subiaul, Annika Paukner, Stephen J. Suomi, Pier F. Ferrari |
| Abstract |
Empirical studies are incompatible with the proposal that neonatal imitation is arousal driven or declining with age. Nonhuman primate studies reveal a functioning brain mirror system from birth, developmental continuity in imitation and later sociability, and the malleability of neonatal imitation, shaped by the early environment. A narrow focus on arousal effects and reflexes may grossly underestimate neonatal capacities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 6 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 17% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 2 | 33% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 17% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 December 2017.
All research outputs
#16,053,755
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral & Brain Sciences
#1,130
of 2,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,382
of 443,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral & Brain Sciences
#35
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 443,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.