↓ Skip to main content

On Picturing a Candle: The Prehistory of Imagery Science

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
On Picturing a Candle: The Prehistory of Imagery Science
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00515
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew MacKisack, Susan Aldworth, Fiona Macpherson, John Onians, Crawford Winlove, Adam Zeman

Abstract

The past 25 years have seen a rapid growth of knowledge about brain mechanisms involved in visual mental imagery. These advances have largely been made independently of the long history of philosophical - and even psychological - reckoning with imagery and its parent concept 'imagination'. We suggest that the view from these empirical findings can be widened by an appreciation of imagination's intellectual history, and we seek to show how that history both created the conditions for - and presents challenges to - the scientific endeavor. We focus on the neuroscientific literature's most commonly used task - imagining a concrete object - and, after sketching what is known of the neurobiological mechanisms involved, we examine the same basic act of imagining from the perspective of several key positions in the history of philosophy and psychology. We present positions that, firstly, contextualize and inform the neuroscientific account, and secondly, pose conceptual and methodological challenges to the scientific analysis of imagery. We conclude by reflecting on the intellectual history of visualization in the light of contemporary science, and the extent to which such science may resolve long-standing theoretical debates.

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 85 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%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 82 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 24%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 27%
Neuroscience 18 21%
Philosophy 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 21 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 02 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,099,370
of 25,468,789 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#2,295
of 34,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,767
of 313,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#49
of 428 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,789 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 313,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 428 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.