↓ Skip to main content

Visual cortical areas of the mouse: comparison of parcellation and network structure with primates

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
256 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
Visual cortical areas of the mouse: comparison of parcellation and network structure with primates
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2014.00149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marie-Eve Laramée, Denis Boire

Abstract

Brains have evolved to optimize sensory processing. In primates, complex cognitive tasks must be executed and evolution led to the development of large brains with many cortical areas. Rodents do not accomplish cognitive tasks of the same level of complexity as primates and remain with small brains both in relative and absolute terms. But is a small brain necessarily a simple brain? In this review, several aspects of the visual cortical networks have been compared between rodents and primates. The visual system has been used as a model to evaluate the level of complexity of the cortical circuits at the anatomical and functional levels. The evolutionary constraints are first presented in order to appreciate the rules for the development of the brain and its underlying circuits. The organization of sensory pathways, with their parallel and cross-modal circuits, is also examined. Other features of brain networks, often considered as imposing constraints on the development of underlying circuitry, are also discussed and their effect on the complexity of the mouse and primate brain are inspected. In this review, we discuss the common features of cortical circuits in mice and primates and see how these can be useful in understanding visual processing in these animals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 249 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 27%
Researcher 52 20%
Student > Master 31 12%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 35 14%
Unknown 27 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 109 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 4%
Psychology 11 4%
Physics and Astronomy 7 3%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 36 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 March 2020.
All research outputs
#12,915,585
of 22,789,076 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#520
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,265
of 352,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 352,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.