↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary and Developmental Modules

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Evolutionary and Developmental Modules
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2013.00061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Lacquaniti, Yuri P. Ivanenko, Andrea d’Avella, Karl E. Zelik, Myrka Zago

Abstract

The identification of biological modules at the systems level often follows top-down decomposition of a task goal, or bottom-up decomposition of multidimensional data arrays into basic elements or patterns representing shared features. These approaches traditionally have been applied to mature, fully developed systems. Here we review some results from two other perspectives on modularity, namely the developmental and evolutionary perspective. There is growing evidence that modular units of development were highly preserved and recombined during evolution. We first consider a few examples of modules well identifiable from morphology. Next we consider the more difficult issue of identifying functional developmental modules. We dwell especially on modular control of locomotion to argue that the building blocks used to construct different locomotor behaviors are similar across several animal species, presumably related to ancestral neural networks of command. A recurrent theme from comparative studies is that the developmental addition of new premotor modules underlies the postnatal acquisition and refinement of several different motor behaviors in vertebrates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Austria 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 95 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 21%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 23%
Neuroscience 20 19%
Engineering 15 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 19 18%
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 31 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,753,163
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#765
of 1,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,303
of 280,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#63
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,336 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 280,734 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.