↓ Skip to main content

The computational psychiatry of reward: broken brains or misguided minds?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
The computational psychiatry of reward: broken brains or misguided minds?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01445
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Moutoussis, G. W. Story, R. J. Dolan

Abstract

Research into the biological basis of emotional and motivational disorders is in danger of riding roughshod over a patient-centered psychiatry and falling into the dualist errors of the past, i.e., by treating mind and brain as conceptually distinct. We argue that a psychiatry informed by computational neuroscience, computational psychiatry, can obviate this danger. Through a focus on the reasoning processes by which humans attempt to maximize reward (and minimize punishment), and how such reasoning is expressed neurally, computational psychiatry can render obsolete the polarity between biological and psychosocial conceptions of illness. Here, the term 'psychological' comes to refer to information processing performed by biological agents, seen in light of underlying goals. We reflect on the implications of this perspective for a definition of mental disorder, including what is entailed in asserting that a particular disorder is 'biological' or 'psychological' in origin. We propose that a computational approach assists in understanding the topography of mental disorder, while cautioning that the point at which eccentric reasoning constitutes disorder often remains a matter of cultural judgment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 72 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 16%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 16 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,774,281
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#5,483
of 34,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,258
of 287,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#90
of 538 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 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 34,783 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 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 287,122 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 538 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.