↓ Skip to main content

Computational Phenotyping of Two-Person Interactions Reveals Differential Neural Response to Depth-of-Thought

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Computational Phenotyping of Two-Person Interactions Reveals Differential Neural Response to Depth-of-Thought
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002841
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ting Xiang, Debajyoti Ray, Terry Lohrenz, Peter Dayan, P. Read Montague

Abstract

Reciprocating exchange with other humans requires individuals to infer the intentions of their partners. Despite the importance of this ability in healthy cognition and its impact in disease, the dimensions employed and computations involved in such inferences are not clear. We used a computational theory-of-mind model to classify styles of interaction in 195 pairs of subjects playing a multi-round economic exchange game. This classification produces an estimate of a subject's depth-of-thought in the game (low, medium, high), a parameter that governs the richness of the models they build of their partner. Subjects in each category showed distinct neural correlates of learning signals associated with different depths-of-thought. The model also detected differences in depth-of-thought between two groups of healthy subjects: one playing patients with psychiatric disease and the other playing healthy controls. The neural response categories identified by this computational characterization of theory-of-mind may yield objective biomarkers useful in the identification and characterization of pathologies that perturb the capacity to model and interact with other humans.

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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 118 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 27%
Student > Master 13 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 29%
Neuroscience 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Computer Science 10 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 30 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,083,580
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#2,747
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,628
of 288,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#33
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 288,927 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.