↓ Skip to main content

Default Positions: How Neuroscience’s Historical Legacy has Hampered Investigation of the Resting Mind

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
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 (87th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Default Positions: How Neuroscience’s Historical Legacy has Hampered Investigation of the Resting Mind
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00321
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felicity Callard, Jonathan Smallwood, Daniel S. Margulies

Abstract

The puzzle of the brain and mind at rest - their so-called default state - is strongly influenced by the historical precedents that led to its emergence as a scientific question. What eventually became the default-mode network (DMN) was inaugurated via meta-analysis to explain the observation that the baseline "at rest" condition was concealing a pattern of neural activations in anterior and posterior midline brain regions that were not commonly seen in external-task-driven experiments. One reason why these activations have puzzled scientists is because psychology and cognitive neuroscience have historically been focused on paradigms built around external tasks, and so lacked the scientific and theoretical tools to interpret the cognitive functions of the DMN. This externally-focused bias led to the erroneous assumption that the DMN is the primary neural system active at rest, as well as the assumption that this network serves non-goal-directed functions. Although cognitive neuroscience now embraces the need to decode the meaning of self-generated neural activity, a more deliberate and comprehensive framework will be needed before the puzzle of the wandering mind can be laid to rest.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
Germany 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 99 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 24%
Researcher 26 23%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 7 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 43 39%
Neuroscience 19 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 7%
Philosophy 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 18 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,187,362
of 25,759,158 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#7,296
of 34,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,442
of 251,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#106
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,759,158 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,778 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 251,832 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.