Despite the attention attracted by "connectomics", one can lose sight of the very real questions concerning "What are connections?" In the neuroimaging community, "structural" connectivity is ground truth and underlying constraint on "functional" or "effective" connectivity. It is referenced to underlying anatomy; but, as increasingly remarked, there is a large gap between the wealth of human brain mapping and the relatively scant data on actual anatomical connectivity. Moreover, connections have typically been discussed as "pairwise", point x projecting to point y (or: to points y and z), or more recently, in graph theoretical terms, as "nodes" or regions and the interconnecting "edges". This is a convenient shorthand, but tends not to capture the richness and nuance of basic anatomical properties as identified in the classic tradition of tracer studies. The present short review accordingly revisits connectional weights, heterogeneity, reciprocity, topography, and hierarchical organization, drawing on concrete examples. The emphasis is on presynaptic long-distance connections, motivated by the intention to probe current assumptions and promote discussions about further progress and synthesis.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#3,195,470
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#196
of 1,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,228
of 272,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 272,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
