↓ Skip to main content

Computational models of basal-ganglia pathway functions: focus on functional neuroanatomy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
119 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 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
Computational models of basal-ganglia pathway functions: focus on functional neuroanatomy
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2013.00122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henning Schroll, Fred H. Hamker

Abstract

Over the past 15 years, computational models have had a considerable impact on basal-ganglia research. Most of these models implement multiple distinct basal-ganglia pathways and assume them to fulfill different functions. As there is now a multitude of different models, it has become complex to keep track of their various, sometimes just marginally different assumptions on pathway functions. Moreover, it has become a challenge to oversee to what extent individual assumptions are corroborated or challenged by empirical data. Focusing on computational, but also considering non-computational models, we review influential concepts of pathway functions and show to what extent they are compatible with or contradict each other. Moreover, we outline how empirical evidence favors or challenges specific model assumptions and propose experiments that allow testing assumptions against each other.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 3 1%
Unknown 251 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 22%
Researcher 47 17%
Student > Master 47 17%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Other 13 5%
Other 42 16%
Unknown 36 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 73 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 15%
Psychology 35 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 11%
Computer Science 14 5%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 51 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,049,303
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#373
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,315
of 280,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#23
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 280,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.