↓ Skip to main content

Cell Press

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
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 9,566)
  • 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
958 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
3440 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,203 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 3,440 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 33 <1%
Germany 10 <1%
United Kingdom 10 <1%
Japan 4 <1%
Canada 4 <1%
France 2 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 10 <1%
Unknown 3362 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 928 27%
Researcher 564 16%
Student > Master 390 11%
Student > Bachelor 375 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 178 5%
Other 500 15%
Unknown 505 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 1075 31%
Psychology 593 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 423 12%
Engineering 120 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 100 3%
Other 447 13%
Unknown 682 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 882. 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 12 December 2023.
All research outputs
#20,178
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Neuron
#24
of 9,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#396
of 426,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuron
#3
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 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 9,566 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. 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 426,175 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 121 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.