↓ Skip to main content

Ventral and dorsal streams in the evolution of speech and language

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
278 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
Ventral and dorsal streams in the evolution of speech and language
Published in
Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnevo.2012.00007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josef P. Rauschecker

Abstract

The brains of humans and old-world monkeys show a great deal of anatomical similarity. The auditory cortical system, for instance, is organized into a ventral and a dorsal pathway in both species. A fundamental question with regard to the evolution of speech and language (as well as music) is whether human and monkey brains show principal differences in their organization (e.g., new pathways appearing as a result of a single mutation), or whether species differences are of a more subtle, quantitative nature. There is little doubt about a similar role of the ventral auditory pathway in both humans and monkeys in the decoding of spectrally complex sounds, which some authors have referred to as auditory object recognition. This includes the decoding of speech sounds ("speech perception") and their ultimate linking to meaning in humans. The originally presumed role of the auditory dorsal pathway in spatial processing, by analogy to the visual dorsal pathway, has recently been conceptualized into a more general role in sensorimotor integration and control. Specifically for speech, the dorsal processing stream plays a role in speech production as well as categorization of phonemes during on-line processing of speech.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 3%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 259 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 54 19%
Researcher 52 19%
Student > Master 28 10%
Professor 25 9%
Student > Bachelor 24 9%
Other 54 19%
Unknown 41 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 21%
Neuroscience 48 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 8%
Linguistics 13 5%
Other 41 15%
Unknown 58 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 08 October 2017.
All research outputs
#4,152,162
of 23,957,596 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
#19
of 35 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,447
of 249,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,957,596 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one scored the same or higher as 16 of them.
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 249,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.