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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Learning and Generalization under Ambiguity: An fMRI Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002346 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. R. Chumbley, G. Flandin, D. R. Bach, J. Daunizeau, E. Fehr, R. J. Dolan, K. J. Friston |
| Abstract |
Adaptive behavior often exploits generalizations from past experience by applying them judiciously in new situations. This requires a means of quantifying the relative importance of prior experience and current information, so they can be balanced optimally. In this study, we ask whether the brain generalizes in an optimal way. Specifically, we used Bayesian learning theory and fMRI to test whether neuronal responses reflect context-sensitive changes in ambiguity or uncertainty about experience-dependent beliefs. We found that the hippocampus expresses clear ambiguity-dependent responses that are associated with an augmented rate of learning. These findings suggest candidate neuronal systems that may be involved in aberrations of generalization, such as over-confidence. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 86% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| France | 4 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Japan | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 34 | 24% |
| Researcher | 28 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 25% |
| Unknown | 9 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 42 | 30% |
| Neuroscience | 28 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 9 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 10 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,297,362
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#2,873
of 9,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,137
of 253,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#20
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 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 9,043 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 68% 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 253,333 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 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.