The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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.
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 |
Lesions of the Orbitofrontal but Not Medial Prefrontal Cortex Affect Cognitive Judgment Bias in Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00051 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Golebiowska, Rafal Rygula |
| Abstract |
Neuroimaging studies in humans have recently shown that the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) mediate bias in the judgment of forthcoming events. In the present study, we sought to determine whether cognitive judgment bias (CJB) is also dependent on these prefrontal regions in non-human animals. For this, we trained a cohort of rats in the ambiguous-cue interpretation (ACI) paradigm, subjected them to excitotoxic lesions in the medial PFC (mPFC) and OFC, and tested the effects of neuronal loss within these regions on CJB. Comparison of the lesions' behavioral effects in the ACI paradigm revealed that neuronal loss within the OFC but not within the mPFC influences the interpretation of ambiguous cues by animals. Our findings demonstrate the specific involvement of the OFC in CJB in rats. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 32% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 8 | 29% |
| Psychology | 7 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 14% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 March 2017.
All research outputs
#8,263,721
of 26,322,284 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,279
of 3,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,570
of 327,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#24
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,322,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,497 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 327,318 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.