↓ Skip to main content

Inferring collective dynamical states from widely unobserved systems

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
62 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Inferring collective dynamical states from widely unobserved systems
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-04725-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jens Wilting, Viola Priesemann

Abstract

When assessing spatially extended complex systems, one can rarely sample the states of all components. We show that this spatial subsampling typically leads to severe underestimation of the risk of instability in systems with propagating events. We derive a subsampling-invariant estimator, and demonstrate that it correctly infers the infectiousness of various diseases under subsampling, making it particularly useful in countries with unreliable case reports. In neuroscience, recordings are strongly limited by subsampling. Here, the subsampling-invariant estimator allows to revisit two prominent hypotheses about the brain's collective spiking dynamics: asynchronous-irregular or critical. We identify consistently for rat, cat, and monkey a state that combines features of both and allows input to reverberate in the network for hundreds of milliseconds. Overall, owing to its ready applicability, the novel estimator paves the way to novel insight for the study of spatially extended dynamical systems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 20%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Master 13 9%
Professor 9 6%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 40 28%
Physics and Astronomy 23 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Engineering 9 6%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 25 17%
Unknown 28 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 17 April 2023.
All research outputs
#584,963
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#10,029
of 58,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,634
of 344,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#247
of 1,180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 58,133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 344,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,180 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.