↓ Skip to main content

Model-based functional neuroimaging using dynamic neural fields: An integrative cognitive neuroscience approach

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Mathematical Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 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.
Article details
Title
Model-based functional neuroimaging using dynamic neural fields: An integrative cognitive neuroscience approach
Published in
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jmp.2016.11.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A fundamental challenge in cognitive neuroscience is to develop theoretical frameworks that effectively span the gap between brain and behavior, between neuroscience and psychology. Here, we attempt to bridge this divide by formalizing an integrative cognitive neuroscience approach using dynamic field theory (DFT). We begin by providing an overview of how DFT seeks to understand the neural population dynamics that underlie cognitive processes through previous applications and comparisons to other modeling approaches. We then use previously published behavioral and neural data from a response selection Go/Nogo task as a case study for model simulations. Results from this study served as the 'standard' for comparisons with a model-based fMRI approach using dynamic neural fields (DNF). The tutorial explains the rationale and hypotheses involved in the process of creating the DNF architecture and fitting model parameters. Two DNF models, with similar structure and parameter sets, are then compared. Both models effectively simulated reaction times from the task as we varied the number of stimulus-response mappings and the proportion of Go trials. Next, we directly simulated hemodynamic predictions from the neural activation patterns from each model. These predictions were tested using general linear models (GLMs). Results showed that the DNF model that was created by tuning parameters to capture simultaneously trends in neural activation and behavioral data quantitatively outperformed a Standard GLM analysis of the same dataset. Further, by using the GLM results to assign functional roles to particular clusters in the brain, we illustrate how DNF models shed new light on the neural populations' dynamics within particular brain regions. Thus, the present study illustrates how an interactive cognitive neuroscience model can be used in practice to bridge the gap between brain and behavior.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 27%
Neuroscience 15 20%
Computer Science 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 22 29%
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 22 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,575,050
of 27,777,630 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Mathematical Psychology
#319
of 470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,692
of 421,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Mathematical Psychology
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,777,630 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 421,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.