↓ Skip to main content

Sigmund Freud—early network theories of the brain

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neurochirurgica, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Sigmund Freud—early network theories of the brain
Published in
Acta Neurochirurgica, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00701-018-3519-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Werner Surbeck, Tim Killeen, Johannes Vetter, Gerhard Hildebrandt

Abstract

Since the early days of modern neuroscience, psychological models of brain function have been a key component in the development of new knowledge. These models aim to provide a framework that allows the integration of discoveries derived from the fundamental disciplines of neuroscience, including anatomy and physiology, as well as clinical neurology and psychiatry. During the initial stages of his career, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), became actively involved in these nascent fields with a burgeoning interest in functional neuroanatomy. In contrast to his contemporaries, Freud was convinced that cognition could not be localised to separate modules and that the brain processes cognition not in a merely serial manner but in a parallel and dynamic fashion-anticipating fundamental aspects of current network theories of brain function. This article aims to shed light on Freud's seminal, yet oft-overlooked, early work on functional neuroanatomy and his reasons for finally abandoning the conventional neuroscientific "brain-based" reference frame in order to conceptualise the mind from a purely psychological perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 18 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 17%
Psychology 4 10%
Arts and Humanities 3 7%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 20 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,588,536
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neurochirurgica
#211
of 2,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,793
of 344,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neurochirurgica
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,141 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 344,688 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 95% of its contemporaries.