↓ Skip to main content

Reasoning with Linear Orders: Differential Parietal Cortex Activation in Sub-Clinical Depression. An fMRI Investigation in Sub-Clinical Depression and Controls

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Reasoning with Linear Orders: Differential Parietal Cortex Activation in Sub-Clinical Depression. An fMRI Investigation in Sub-Clinical Depression and Controls
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01061
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elanor C. Hinton, Richard G. Wise, Krish D. Singh, Ulrich von Hecker

Abstract

The capacity to learn new information and manipulate it for efficient retrieval has long been studied through reasoning paradigms, which also has applicability to the study of social behavior. Humans can learn about the linear order within groups using reasoning, and the success of such reasoning may vary according to affective state, such as depression. We investigated the neural basis of these latter findings using functional neuroimaging. Using BDI-II criteria, 14 non-depressed (ND) and 12 mildly depressed volunteers took part in a linear-order reasoning task during functional magnetic resonance imaging. The hippocampus, parietal, and prefrontal cortices were activated during the task, in accordance with previous studies. In the learning phase and in the test phase, greater activation of the parietal cortex was found in the depressed group, which may be a compensatory mechanism in order to reach the same behavioral performance as the ND group, or evidence for a different reasoning strategy in the depressed group.

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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Chile 1 5%
Unknown 18 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Neuroscience 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unknown 5 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,247,117
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,532
of 7,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#295,965
of 352,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#164
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,141 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 352,376 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.