↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

Article Metrics

Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias

Overview of attention for article published in Neuron, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 7,191)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1774 Mendeley
citeulike
5 CiteULike
Title
Neuroscience Needs Behavior: Correcting a Reductionist Bias
Published in
Neuron, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.12.041
Pubmed ID
Authors

John W. Krakauer, Asif A. Ghazanfar, Alex Gomez-Marin, Malcolm A. MacIver, David Poeppel

Abstract

There are ever more compelling tools available for neuroscience research, ranging from selective genetic targeting to optogenetic circuit control to mapping whole connectomes. These approaches are coupled with a deep-seated, often tacit, belief in the reductionist program for understanding the link between the brain and behavior. The aim of this program is causal explanation through neural manipulations that allow testing of necessity and sufficiency claims. We argue, however, that another equally important approach seeks an alternative form of understanding through careful theoretical and experimental decomposition of behavior. Specifically, the detailed analysis of tasks and of the behavior they elicit is best suited for discovering component processes and their underlying algorithms. In most cases, we argue that study of the neural implementation of behavior is best investigated after such behavioral work. Thus, we advocate a more pluralistic notion of neuroscience when it comes to the brain-behavior relationship: behavioral work provides understanding, whereas neural interventions test causality.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,109 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,774 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 39 2%
United Kingdom 15 <1%
Germany 10 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
Belgium 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Other 15 <1%
Unknown 1677 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 585 33%
Researcher 323 18%
Student > Master 205 12%
Student > Bachelor 192 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 104 6%
Other 365 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 544 31%
Psychology 396 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 329 19%
Unspecified 178 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 69 4%
Other 258 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 867. 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 13 January 2019.
All research outputs
#4,399
of 12,389,598 outputs
Outputs from Neuron
#9
of 7,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#291
of 333,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuron
#2
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,389,598 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,191 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 333,348 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.