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 |
Brain Imaging, Forward Inference, and Theories of Reasoning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01056 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Evan Heit |
| Abstract |
This review focuses on the issue of how neuroimaging studies address theoretical accounts of reasoning, through the lens of the method of forward inference (Henson, 2005, 2006). After theories of deductive and inductive reasoning are briefly presented, the method of forward inference for distinguishing between psychological theories based on brain imaging evidence is critically reviewed. Brain imaging studies of reasoning, comparing deductive and inductive arguments, comparing meaningful versus non-meaningful material, investigating hemispheric localization, and comparing conditional and relational arguments, are assessed in light of the method of forward inference. Finally, conclusions are drawn with regard to future research opportunities. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 35 | 38% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Philosophy | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 24 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,124,958
of 24,323,543 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,933
of 7,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,707
of 360,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#95
of 183 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,323,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 360,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 183 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.