↓ Skip to main content

Modeling and Theories of Pathophysiology and Physiology of the Basal Ganglia–Thalamic–Cortical System: Critical Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Modeling and Theories of Pathophysiology and Physiology of the Basal Ganglia–Thalamic–Cortical System: Critical Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00469
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erwin B. Montgomery Jr.

Abstract

Theories impact the movement disorders clinic, not only affecting the development of new therapies but determining how current therapies are used. Models are theories that are procedural rather than declarative. Theories and models are important because, as argued by Kant, one cannot know the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) and only a model is knowable. Further, biological variability forces higher level abstraction relevant for all variants. It is that abstraction that is raison d'être of theories and models. Theories "connect the dots" to move from correlation to causation. The necessity of theory makes theories helpful or counterproductive. Theories and models of the pathophysiology and physiology of the basal ganglia-thalamic-cortical system do not spontaneously arise but have a history and consequently are legacies. Over the last 40 years, numerous theories and models of the basal ganglia have been proposed only to be forgotten or dismissed, rarely critiqued. It is not harsh to say that current popular theories positing increased neuronal activities in the Globus Pallidus Interna (GPi), excessive beta oscillations and increased synchronization not only fail to provide an adequate explication but are inconsistent with many observations. It is likely that their shared intellectual and epistemic inheritance plays a factor in their shared failures. These issues are critically examined. How one is to derive theories and models and have hope these will be better is explored as well.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 31%
Other 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 21%
Engineering 3 10%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Mathematics 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#14,860,134
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,918
of 7,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,172
of 320,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#100
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,172 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 320,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.