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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Possible functional links among brain- and skull-related genes selected in modern humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00794 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio Benítez-Burraco, Cedric Boeckx |
| Abstract |
The sequencing of the genomes from extinct hominins has revealed that changes in some brain-related genes have been selected after the split between anatomically-modern humans and Neanderthals/Denisovans. To date, no coherent view of these changes has been provided. Following a line of research we initiated in Boeckx and Benítez-Burraco (2014a), we hypothesize functional links among most of these genes and their products, based on the existing literature for each of the gene discussed. The genes we focus on are found mutated in different cognitive disorders affecting modern populations and their products are involved in skull and brain morphology, and neural connectivity. If our hypothesis turns out to be on the right track, it means that the changes affecting most of these proteins resulted in a more globular brain and ultimately brought about modern cognition, with its characteristic generativity and capacity to form and exploit cross-modular concepts, properties most clearly manifested in language. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 23% |
| Researcher | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,529,583
of 24,166,768 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,956
of 32,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,249
of 243,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#103
of 522 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,166,768 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,474 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 243,464 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 522 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.