↓ Skip to main content

Article

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, January 2006
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1747-5333-1-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd M Preuss

Abstract

Understanding how humans differ from other animals, as well as how we are like them, requires comparative investigations. For the purpose of documenting the distinctive features of humans, the most informative research involves comparing humans to our closest relatives-the chimpanzees and other great apes. Psychology and anthropology have maintained a tradition of empirical comparative research on human specializations of cognition. The neurosciences, by contrast, have been dominated by the model-animal research paradigm, which presupposes the commonality of "basic" features of brain organization across species and discourages serious treatment of species differences. As a result, the neurosciences have made little progress in understanding human brain specializations. Recent developments in neuroimaging, genomics, and other non-invasive techniques make it possible to directly compare humans and nonhuman species at levels of organization that were previously inaccessible, offering the hope of gaining a better understanding of the species-specific features of the human brain. This hope will be dashed, however, if chimpanzees and other great ape species become unavailable for even non-invasive research.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 13%
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 32 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 26%
Researcher 8 21%
Professor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 39%
Neuroscience 6 16%
Psychology 3 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 5 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 November 2009.
All research outputs
#2,144,836
of 12,444,666 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#2
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,075,011
of 11,871,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,444,666 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one scored the same or higher as 10 of them.
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 11,871,976 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.