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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Odor mental imagery in non-experts in odors: a paradox?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00087 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jean-Pierre Royet, Chantal Delon-Martin, Jane Plailly |
| Abstract |
In agreement with the theoretical framework stipulating that mental images arise from neural activity in early sensory cortices, the primary olfactory cortex [i.e., the piriform cortex (PC)] is activated when non-olfactory-experts try to generate odor mental images. This finding strongly contrasts with the allegation that it is typically impossible to mentally imagine odors. However, other neurophysiological or cognitive processes engaged in the endeavor of odor mental imagery such as sniffing, attention, expectation, and cross-modal interactions involve the PC and could explain this paradox. To unambiguously study the odor mental imagery, we first argued the need to investigate odor experts who have learned to specifically reactivate olfactory percepts. We then assert the necessity to explore the network dedicated to this function by considering variations in both the activity level and the connection strength of the areas belonging to this network as a function of the level of expertise of the odor experts. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 10% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 18% |
| Researcher | 10 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 22 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,659,616
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,142
of 7,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,533
of 280,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#317
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,125 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 280,698 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.