↓ Skip to main content

The interactive brain hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
357 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
The interactive brain hypothesis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2012.00163
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ezequiel Di Paolo, Hanne De Jaegher

Abstract

Enactive approaches foreground the role of interpersonal interaction in explanations of social understanding. This motivates, in combination with a recent interest in neuroscientific studies involving actual interactions, the question of how interactive processes relate to neural mechanisms involved in social understanding. We introduce the Interactive Brain Hypothesis (IBH) in order to help map the spectrum of possible relations between social interaction and neural processes. The hypothesis states that interactive experience and skills play enabling roles in both the development and current function of social brain mechanisms, even in cases where social understanding happens in the absence of immediate interaction. We examine the plausibility of this hypothesis against developmental and neurobiological evidence and contrast it with the widespread assumption that mindreading is crucial to all social cognition. We describe the elements of social interaction that bear most directly on this hypothesis and discuss the empirical possibilities open to social neuroscience. We propose that the link between coordination dynamics and social understanding can be best grasped by studying transitions between states of coordination. These transitions form part of the self-organization of interaction processes that characterize the dynamics of social engagement. The patterns and synergies of this self-organization help explain how individuals understand each other. Various possibilities for role-taking emerge during interaction, determining a spectrum of participation. This view contrasts sharply with the observational stance that has guided research in social neuroscience until recently. We also introduce the concept of readiness to interact to describe the practices and dispositions that are summoned in situations of social significance (even if not interactive). This latter idea links interactive factors to more classical observational scenarios.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Finland 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 327 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 84 24%
Student > Master 58 16%
Researcher 55 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 6%
Other 71 20%
Unknown 43 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 105 29%
Neuroscience 30 8%
Computer Science 25 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 6%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Other 96 27%
Unknown 62 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,235,542
of 23,524,722 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#579
of 7,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,365
of 247,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#35
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,524,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 247,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.