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 |
A Causal Theory of Mnemonic Confabulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01207 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sven Bernecker |
| Abstract |
This paper attempts to answer the question of what defines mnemonic confabulation vis-à-vis genuine memory. The two extant accounts of mnemonic confabulation as "false memory" and as ill-grounded memory are shown to be problematic, for they cannot account for the possibility of veridical confabulation, ill-grounded memory, and well-grounded confabulation. This paper argues that the defining characteristic of mnemonic confabulation is that it lacks the appropriate causal history. In the confabulation case, there is no proper counterfactual dependence of the state of seeming to remember on the corresponding past representation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Brazil | 1 | 20% |
| Colombia | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 13 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 8 | 27% |
| Psychology | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 15 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 December 2023.
All research outputs
#14,758,812
of 25,134,448 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,882
of 33,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,969
of 320,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#312
of 560 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,134,448 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 320,461 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 560 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.