↓ Skip to main content

The Hippocampus and Imagining the Future: Where Do We Stand?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
246 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
342 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
The Hippocampus and Imagining the Future: Where Do We Stand?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00173
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna Rose Addis, Daniel L. Schacter

Abstract

Recent neuroimaging work has demonstrated that the hippocampus is engaged when imagining the future, in some cases more than when remembering the past. It is possible that this hippocampal activation reflects recombining details into coherent scenarios and/or the encoding of these scenarios into memory for later use. However, inconsistent findings have emerged from recent studies of future simulation in patients with memory loss and hippocampal damage. Thus, it remains an open question as to whether the hippocampus is necessary for future simulation. In this review, we consider the findings from patient studies and the neuroimaging literature with respect to a new framework that highlights three component processes of simulation: accessing episodic details, recombining details, and encoding simulations. We attempt to reconcile these discrepancies between neuroimaging and patient studies by suggesting that different component processes of future simulation may be differentially affected by hippocampal damage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 342 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 3%
Germany 3 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 313 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 89 26%
Researcher 50 15%
Student > Master 46 13%
Student > Bachelor 37 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Other 59 17%
Unknown 40 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 164 48%
Neuroscience 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 4%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 35 10%
Unknown 59 17%
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 15 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,058,374
of 24,844,992 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#948
of 7,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,931
of 254,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#58
of 292 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,844,992 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 7,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 254,963 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 292 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.