↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Published in
Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1747-5333-1-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karl H Pribram

Abstract

What makes man human is his brain. This brain is obviously different from those of nonhuman primates. It is larger, shows hemispheric dominance and specialization, and is cytoarchitecturally somewhat more generalized. But are these the essential characteristics that determine the humanness of man? This paper cannot give an answer to this question for the answer is not known. But the problem can be stated more specifically, alternatives spelled out on the basis of available research results, and directions given for further inquiry. My theme will be that the human brain is so constructed that man, and only man, feels the thrust to make meaningful all his experiences and encounters. Development of this theme demands an analysis of the brain mechanisms that make meaning-and an attempt to define biologically the process of meaning. In this pursuit of meaning a fascinating variety of topics comes into focus: the coding and recoding operations of the brain; how it engenders and processes information and redundancy; and, how it makes possible signs and symbols and prepositional utterances. Of these, current research results indicate that only in the making of propositions is man unique-so here perhaps are to be found the keynotes that compose the theme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 8%
Unknown 12 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 15%
Researcher 2 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 5 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 31%
Neuroscience 3 23%
Philosophy 1 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 2 15%
Unknown 1 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 October 2020.
All research outputs
#6,411,787
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#5
of 12 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,759
of 154,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Biomedical Discovery and Collaboration
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one scored the same or higher as 7 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 154,362 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.