↓ Skip to main content

What caused Joan of Arc’s neuropsychiatric symptoms? Medical hypotheses from 1882 to 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
What caused Joan of Arc’s neuropsychiatric symptoms? Medical hypotheses from 1882 to 2016
Published in
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, March 2023
DOI 10.1080/0964704x.2023.2171799
Pubmed ID
Authors

Barbara Schildkrout

Abstract

Between 1882 and 2016, the medical literature offered a variety of etiologic hypotheses to explain Joan of Arc's voices, visions, and unwavering belief that she was the instrument of God. Although Joan lived from 1412 to 1431, there is extensive primary documentation of her life, including transcripts of her testimony during the Trial of Condemnation. Once this source material was compiled and made available, physician-authors began to theorize about Joan's neuropsychiatric symptoms in the context of her remarkable achievements. This article summarizes all papers written by physician-authors about Joan of Arc. The historical flow of diagnostic speculation in the medical literature reflects the cultural context in which it was produced as well as the emergence of novel ideas and new technologies in psychiatry, neurology, and neuropsychiatry. The early literature offered psychological theories and addressed the question of whether Joan was sane. The later literature focused on the possibility that Joan might have had epilepsy, with discussions of seizure etiology and possible cerebral focus, and also reflections on the purview of science as well as spirituality and the brain. This article offers the first comprehensive review of the medical literature about Joan of Arc, making this scholarship more accessible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 1 100%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#19,814,376
of 24,350,163 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
#338
of 401 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#300,366
of 407,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,350,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 401 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 407,348 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.