↓ Skip to main content

Bottom-Up and Top-Down Mechanisms of General Anesthetics Modulate Different Dimensions of Consciousness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neural Circuits, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
102 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Bottom-Up and Top-Down Mechanisms of General Anesthetics Modulate Different Dimensions of Consciousness
Published in
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fncir.2017.00044
Pubmed ID
Authors

George A. Mashour, Anthony G. Hudetz

Abstract

There has been controversy regarding the precise mechanisms of anesthetic-induced unconsciousness, with two salient approaches that have emerged within systems neuroscience. One prominent approach is the "bottom up" paradigm, which argues that anesthetics suppress consciousness by modulating sleep-wake nuclei and neural circuits in the brainstem and diencephalon that have evolved to control arousal states. Another approach is the "top-down" paradigm, which argues that anesthetics suppress consciousness by modulating the cortical and thalamocortical circuits involved in the integration of neural information. In this article, we synthesize these approaches by mapping bottom-up and top-down mechanisms of general anesthetics to two distinct but inter-related dimensions of consciousness: level and content. We show how this explains certain empirical observations regarding the diversity of anesthetic drug effects. We conclude with a more nuanced discussion of how levels and contents of consciousness interact to generate subjective experience and what this implies for the mechanisms of anesthetic-induced unconsciousness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 20%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 36 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 32 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 42 31%
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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#7,020,704
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#422
of 1,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,930
of 316,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#11
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,221 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 64% 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 316,825 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.