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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How Synchronization Protects from Noise
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000637 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicolas Tabareau, Jean-Jacques Slotine, Quang-Cuong Pham |
| Abstract |
THE FUNCTIONAL ROLE OF SYNCHRONIZATION HAS ATTRACTED MUCH INTEREST AND DEBATE: in particular, synchronization may allow distant sites in the brain to communicate and cooperate with each other, and therefore may play a role in temporal binding, in attention or in sensory-motor integration mechanisms. In this article, we study another role for synchronization: the so-called "collective enhancement of precision". We argue, in a full nonlinear dynamical context, that synchronization may help protect interconnected neurons from the influence of random perturbations-intrinsic neuronal noise-which affect all neurons in the nervous system. More precisely, our main contribution is a mathematical proof that, under specific, quantified conditions, the impact of noise on individual interconnected systems and on their spatial mean can essentially be cancelled through synchronization. This property then allows reliable computations to be carried out even in the presence of significant noise (as experimentally found e.g., in retinal ganglion cells in primates). This in turn is key to obtaining meaningful downstream signals, whether in terms of precisely-timed interaction (temporal coding), population coding, or frequency coding. Similar concepts may be applicable to questions of noise and variability in systems biology. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 9 | 4% |
| United States | 7 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 1% |
| France | 3 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Turkey | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 1% |
| Unknown | 170 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 65 | 32% |
| Researcher | 37 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 9% |
| Professor | 19 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 37 | 18% |
| Unknown | 14 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 59 | 29% |
| Engineering | 32 | 16% |
| Computer Science | 25 | 12% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 19 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 33 | 16% |
| Unknown | 20 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 October 2011.
All research outputs
#4,835,967
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#3,864
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,805
of 183,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#25
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 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 56% 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 183,623 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 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 59% of its contemporaries.