↓ Skip to main content

Inferring Evolutionary Process From Neuroanatomical Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
33 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
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.
Title
Inferring Evolutionary Process From Neuroanatomical Data
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2018.00054
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric Lewitus

Abstract

Brain evolution has interested neuroanatomists for over a century. These interests often fall on how free the brain is to evolve independently of the body, how free brain regions are to evolve independently of each other, and how different environmental and ecological factors affect the brain over evolutionary time. But despite major advances in phylogenetic methods, comparative neuroanatomists have tended to limit their macroevolutionary toolbox to regression-based analyses and ignored the scope of evolutionary process-based models at their disposal. This Review summarizes the history of comparative neuroanatomy and highlights the pitfalls of the methodologies traditionally used. It provides an overview of evolutionary process-based modeling approaches for investigating univariate and multivariate data, as well as more sophisticated methods that incorporate hypotheses about biotic and abiotic pressures that may drive brain evolution. The benefits of evolutionary process-based models, and shortcomings of regression-based ones, are illustrated with widely used neuroanatomical data. Ultimately, the intent of this Review is to be a guide for subsuming macroevolutionary methods not typically used in comparative neuroanatomy, in order to improve our understanding of how the brain evolves.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 18%
Neuroscience 5 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 12 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,242,266
of 26,411,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#101
of 1,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,768
of 345,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,411,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 345,601 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.