↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic systems approaches and levels of analysis in the nervous system

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Dynamic systems approaches and levels of analysis in the nervous system
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00015
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Parker, Vipin Srivastava

Abstract

Various analyses are applied to physiological signals. While epistemological diversity is necessary to address effects at different levels, there is often a sense of competition between analyses rather than integration. This is evidenced by the differences in the criteria needed to claim understanding in different approaches. In the nervous system, neuronal analyses that attempt to explain network outputs in cellular and synaptic terms are rightly criticized as being insufficient to explain global effects, emergent or otherwise, while higher-level statistical and mathematical analyses can provide quantitative descriptions of outputs but can only hypothesize on their underlying mechanisms. The major gap in neuroscience is arguably our inability to translate what should be seen as complementary effects between levels. We thus ultimately need approaches that allow us to bridge between different spatial and temporal levels. Analytical approaches derived from critical phenomena in the physical sciences are increasingly being applied to physiological systems, including the nervous system, and claim to provide novel insight into physiological mechanisms and opportunities for their control. Analyses of criticality have suggested several important insights that should be considered in cellular analyses. However, there is a mismatch between lower-level neurophysiological approaches and statistical phenomenological analyses that assume that lower-level effects can be abstracted away, which means that these effects are unknown or inaccessible to experimentalists. As a result experimental designs often generate data that is insufficient for analyses of criticality. This review considers the relevance of insights from analyses of criticality to neuronal network analyses, and highlights that to move the analyses forward and close the gap between the theoretical and neurobiological levels, it is necessary to consider that effects at each level are complementary rather than in competition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 3%
Japan 2 3%
Sweden 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 58 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 3 5%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Neuroscience 8 12%
Engineering 6 9%
Psychology 4 6%
Other 14 22%
Unknown 11 17%
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 15 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,881,511
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,869
of 13,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,314
of 280,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#140
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,500 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 280,671 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 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 62% of its contemporaries.