↓ Skip to main content

Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boris Kotchoubey, Felix Tretter, Hans A. Braun, Thomas Buchheim, Andreas Draguhn, Thomas Fuchs, Felix Hasler, Heiner Hastedt, Thilo Hinterberger, Georg Northoff, Ingo Rentschler, Stephan Schleim, Stephan Sellmaier, Ludger Tebartz Van Elst, Wolfgang Tschacher

Abstract

Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary effort to understand the structures and functions of the brain and brain-mind relations. This effort results in an increasing amount of data, generated by sophisticated technologies. However, these data enhance our descriptive knowledge, rather than improve our understanding of brain functions. This is caused by methodological gaps both within and between subdisciplines constituting neuroscience, and the atomistic approach that limits the study of macro- and mesoscopic issues. Whole-brain measurement technologies do not resolve these issues, but rather aggravate them by the complexity problem. The present article is devoted to methodological and epistemic problems that obstruct the development of human neuroscience. We neither discuss ontological questions (e.g., the nature of the mind) nor review data, except when it is necessary to demonstrate a methodological issue. As regards intradisciplinary methodological problems, we concentrate on those within neurobiology (e.g., the gap between electrical and chemical approaches to neurophysiological processes) and psychology (missing theoretical concepts). As regards interdisciplinary problems, we suggest that core disciplines of neuroscience can be integrated using systemic concepts that also entail human-environment relations. We emphasize the necessity of a meta-discussion that should entail a closer cooperation with philosophy as a discipline of systematic reflection. The atomistic reduction should be complemented by the explicit consideration of the embodiedness of the brain and the embeddedness of humans. The discussion is aimed at the development of an explicit methodology of integrative human neuroscience, which will not only link different fields and levels, but also help in understanding clinical phenomena.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 100 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 17%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Student > Master 12 11%
Other 9 9%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 25%
Neuroscience 19 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Philosophy 4 4%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 20 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,162,886
of 25,750,437 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#61
of 919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,873
of 419,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,750,437 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 419,173 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.