↓ Skip to main content

When Two Become One: The Limits of Causality Analysis of Brain Dynamics

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
When Two Become One: The Limits of Causality Analysis of Brain Dynamics
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032466
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel Chicharro, Anders Ledberg

Abstract

Biological systems often consist of multiple interacting subsystems, the brain being a prominent example. To understand the functions of such systems it is important to analyze if and how the subsystems interact and to describe the effect of these interactions. In this work we investigate the extent to which the cause-and-effect framework is applicable to such interacting subsystems. We base our work on a standard notion of causal effects and define a new concept called natural causal effect. This new concept takes into account that when studying interactions in biological systems, one is often not interested in the effect of perturbations that alter the dynamics. The interest is instead in how the causal connections participate in the generation of the observed natural dynamics. We identify the constraints on the structure of the causal connections that determine the existence of natural causal effects. In particular, we show that the influence of the causal connections on the natural dynamics of the system often cannot be analyzed in terms of the causal effect of one subsystem on another. Only when the causing subsystem is autonomous with respect to the rest can this interpretation be made. We note that subsystems in the brain are often bidirectionally connected, which means that interactions rarely should be quantified in terms of cause-and-effect. We furthermore introduce a framework for how natural causal effects can be characterized when they exist. Our work also has important consequences for the interpretation of other approaches commonly applied to study causality in the brain. Specifically, we discuss how the notion of natural causal effects can be combined with Granger causality and Dynamic Causal Modeling (DCM). Our results are generic and the concept of natural causal effects is relevant in all areas where the effects of interactions between subsystems are of interest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
France 2 2%
Finland 2 2%
Canada 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Cuba 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 102 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 25%
Student > Master 13 11%
Professor 5 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 11 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 20 16%
Psychology 19 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 13%
Neuroscience 15 12%
Physics and Astronomy 13 11%
Other 30 25%
Unknown 9 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 March 2012.
All research outputs
#16,388,648
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#143,580
of 207,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,772
of 161,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,325
of 3,629 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 161,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,629 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.