↓ Skip to main content

Criticality in the brain: A synthesis of neurobiology, models and cognition

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Neurobiology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 855)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
104 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 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
Criticality in the brain: A synthesis of neurobiology, models and cognition
Published in
Progress in Neurobiology, November 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.pneurobio.2017.07.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Cocchi, Leonardo L. Gollo, Andrew Zalesky, Michael Breakspear

Abstract

Cognitive function requires the coordination of neural activity across many scales, from neurons and circuits to large-scale networks. As such, it is unlikely that an explanatory framework focused upon any single scale will yield a comprehensive theory of brain activity and cognitive function. Modelling and analysis methods for neuroscience should aim to accommodate multiscale phenomena. Emerging research now suggests that multi-scale processes in the brain arise from so-called critical phenomena that occur very broadly in the natural world. Criticality arises in complex systems perched between order and disorder, and is marked by fluctuations that do not have any privileged spatial or temporal scale. We review the core nature of criticality, the evidence supporting its role in neural systems and its explanatory potential in brain health and disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 104 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 27%
Researcher 37 22%
Student > Master 22 13%
Unspecified 14 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 42 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 37 22%
Unspecified 29 17%
Physics and Astronomy 24 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 11%
Computer Science 17 10%
Other 45 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#261,300
of 12,395,470 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Neurobiology
#9
of 855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,418
of 267,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Neurobiology
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,395,470 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 855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 267,036 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.