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 |
Biofunctional Understanding and Conceptual Control: Searching for Systematic Consensus in Systemic Cohesion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01702 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Asghar Iran-Nejad, Fareed Bordbar |
| Abstract |
For first generation scientists after the cognitive revolution, knowers were in active control over all (stages of) information processing. Then, following a decade of transition shaped by intense controversy, embodied cognition emerged and suggested sources of control other than those implied by metaphysical information processing. With a thematic focus on embodiment science and an eye toward systematic consensus in systemic cohesion, the present study explores the roles of biofunctional and conceptual control processes in the wholetheme spiral of biofunctional understanding (see Iran-Nejad and Irannejad, 2017b, Figure 1). According to this spiral, each of the two kinds of understanding has its own unique set of knower control processes. For conceptual understanding (CU), knowers have deliberate attention-allocation control over their first-person "knowthat" and "knowhow" content combined as mutually coherent corequisites. For biofunctional understanding (BU), knowers have attention-allocation control only over their knowthat content but knowhow control content is ordinarily conspicuously absent. To test the hypothesis of differences in the manner of control between CU and BU, participants in two experiments read identical-format statements for internal consistency, as response time was recorded. The results of Experiment 1 supported the hypothesis of differences in the manner of control between the two types of control processes; and Experiment 2 confirmed the results of Experiment 1. These findings are discussed in terms of the predicted differences between BU and CU control processes, their roles in regulating the physically unobservable flow of systemic cohesion in the wholetheme spiral, and a proposal for systematic consensus in systemic cohesion to serve as the second guiding principle in biofunctional embodiment science next to physical science's first guiding principle of systematic observation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 38% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 13% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 13% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 13% |
| Psychology | 1 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 2 | 25% |
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 02 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,217,080
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,398
of 30,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,884
of 327,724 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#329
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,235 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 327,724 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.