↓ Skip to main content

Solving the Neurogenesis Puzzle: Looking for Pieces Outside the Traditional Box

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Solving the Neurogenesis Puzzle: Looking for Pieces Outside the Traditional Box
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2017.00505
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariela Faykoo-Martinez, Ilapreet Toor, Melissa M. Holmes

Abstract

The vast majority of what is considered fact about adult neurogenesis comes from research on laboratory mice and rats: where it happens, how it works, what it does. However, this relative exclusive focus on two rodent species has resulted in a bias on how we think about adult neurogenesis. While it might not prevent us from making conclusions about the evolutionary significance of the process or even prevent us from generalizing to diverse mammals, it certainly does not help us achieve these outcomes. Here, we argue that there is every reason to expect striking species differences in adult neurogenesis: where it happens, how it works, what it does. Species-specific adaptations in brain and behavior are paramount to survival and reproduction in diverse ecological niches and it is naive to think adult neurogenesis escaped these evolutionary pressures. A neuroethological approach to the study of adult neurogenesis is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Furthermore, most of us are guilty of making strong assertions about our data in order to have impact yet this ultimately creates bias in how work is performed, interpreted, and applied. By taking a step back and actually placing our results in a much larger, non-biomedical context, we can help to reduce dogmatic thinking and create a framework for discovery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 8 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#6,573,525
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#4,355
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,481
of 323,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#43
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 323,665 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 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 73% of its contemporaries.