↓ Skip to main content

Methods for Generating Complex Networks with Selected Structural Properties for Simulations: A Review and Tutorial for Neuroscientists

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Methods for Generating Complex Networks with Selected Structural Properties for Simulations: A Review and Tutorial for Neuroscientists
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2011.00011
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenton J. Prettejohn, Matthew J. Berryman, Mark D. McDonnell

Abstract

Many simulations of networks in computational neuroscience assume completely homogenous random networks of the Erdös-Rényi type, or regular networks, despite it being recognized for some time that anatomical brain networks are more complex in their connectivity and can, for example, exhibit the "scale-free" and "small-world" properties. We review the most well known algorithms for constructing networks with given non-homogeneous statistical properties and provide simple pseudo-code for reproducing such networks in software simulations. We also review some useful mathematical results and approximations associated with the statistics that describe these network models, including degree distribution, average path length, and clustering coefficient. We demonstrate how such results can be used as partial verification and validation of implementations. Finally, we discuss a sometimes overlooked modeling choice that can be crucially important for the properties of simulated networks: that of network directedness. The most well known network algorithms produce undirected networks, and we emphasize this point by highlighting how simple adaptations can instead produce directed networks.

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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
United Kingdom 4 2%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 178 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 29%
Researcher 42 21%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 17 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 6%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 24 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 40 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 19%
Engineering 20 10%
Physics and Astronomy 16 8%
Neuroscience 16 8%
Other 46 23%
Unknown 25 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#617
of 1,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,142
of 190,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 190,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.