↓ Skip to main content

Dynamical Principles of Emotion-Cognition Interaction: Mathematical Images of Mental Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Dynamical Principles of Emotion-Cognition Interaction: Mathematical Images of Mental Disorders
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0012547
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikhail I. Rabinovich, Mehmet K. Muezzinoglu, Irina Strigo, Alexander Bystritsky

Abstract

The key contribution of this work is to introduce a mathematical framework to understand self-organized dynamics in the brain that can explain certain aspects of itinerant behavior. Specifically, we introduce a model based upon the coupling of generalized Lotka-Volterra systems. This coupling is based upon competition for common resources. The system can be regarded as a normal or canonical form for any distributed system that shows self-organized dynamics that entail winnerless competition. Crucially, we will show that some of the fundamental instabilities that arise in these coupled systems are remarkably similar to endogenous activity seen in the brain (using EEG and fMRI). Furthermore, by changing a small subset of the system's parameters we can produce bifurcations and metastable sequential dynamics changing, which bear a remarkable similarity to pathological brain states seen in psychiatry. In what follows, we will consider the coupling of two macroscopic modes of brain activity, which, in a purely descriptive fashion, we will label as cognitive and emotional modes. Our aim is to examine the dynamical structures that emerge when coupling these two modes and relate them tentatively to brain activity in normal and non-normal states.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
France 2 2%
Spain 2 2%
Sweden 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 87 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 24%
Researcher 21 21%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Professor 5 5%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 24%
Computer Science 10 10%
Neuroscience 10 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 19 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 July 2014.
All research outputs
#13,383,750
of 22,708,120 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,720
of 193,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,514
of 96,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#725
of 911 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,708,120 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 96,749 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 911 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.