↓ Skip to main content

Time scales in cognitive neuroscience

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
17 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Time scales in cognitive neuroscience
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2013.00086
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Papo

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience boils down to describing the ways in which cognitive function results from brain activity. In turn, brain activity shows complex fluctuations, with structure at many spatio-temporal scales. Exactly how cognitive function inherits the physical dimensions of neural activity, though, is highly non-trivial, and so are generally the corresponding dimensions of cognitive phenomena. As for any physical phenomenon, when studying cognitive function, the first conceptual step should be that of establishing its dimensions. Here, we provide a systematic presentation of the temporal aspects of task-related brain activity, from the smallest scale of the brain imaging technique's resolution, to the observation time of a given experiment, through the characteristic time scales of the process under study. We first review some standard assumptions on the temporal scales of cognitive function. In spite of their general use, these assumptions hold true to a high degree of approximation for many cognitive (viz. fast perceptual) processes, but have their limitations for other ones (e.g., thinking or reasoning). We define in a rigorous way the temporal quantifiers of cognition at all scales, and illustrate how they qualitatively vary as a function of the properties of the cognitive process under study. We propose that each phenomenon should be approached with its own set of theoretical, methodological and analytical tools. In particular, we show that when treating cognitive processes such as thinking or reasoning, complex properties of ongoing brain activity, which can be drastically simplified when considering fast (e.g., perceptual) processes, start playing a major role, and not only characterize the temporal properties of task-related brain activity, but also determine the conditions for proper observation of the phenomena. Finally, some implications on the design of experiments, data analyses, and the choice of recording parameters are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Finland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 70 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 22%
Student > Master 10 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 13 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 12 16%
Psychology 11 14%
Physics and Astronomy 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 18 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 05 February 2014.
All research outputs
#3,143,981
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#1,671
of 15,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,180
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#52
of 399 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 293,942 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 399 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.