↓ Skip to main content

Down with Retirement: Implications of Embodied Cognition for Healthy Aging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Down with Retirement: Implications of Embodied Cognition for Healthy Aging
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01184
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bernhard Hommel, Armin Kibele

Abstract

Cognitive and neurocognitive approaches to human healthy aging attribute age-related decline to the biologically caused loss of cognitive-control functions. However, an embodied-cognition approach to aging implies a more interactive view according to which cognitive control emerges from, and relies on a person's active encounters with his or her physical and social environment. We argue that the availability of cognitive-control resources does not only rely on biological processes but also on the degree of active maintenance, that is, on the systematic use of the available control resources. Unfortunately, there is evidence that the degree of actual use might systematically underestimate resource availability, which implies that elderly individuals do not fully exploit their cognitive potential. We discuss evidence for this possibility from three aging-related issues: the reduction of dopaminergic supply, loneliness, and the loss of body strength. All three phenomena point to a downward spiral, in which losses of cognitive-control resources do not only directly impair performance but also more indirectly discourage individuals from making use of them, which in turn suggests underuse and a lack of maintenance-leading to further loss. On the positive side, the possibility of underuse points to not yet fully exploited reservoirs of cognitive control, which calls for more systematic theorizing and experimentation on how cognitive control can be enhanced, as well as for reconsiderations of societal practices that are likely to undermine the active maintenance of control resources-such as retirement laws.

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 13 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
Unknown 81 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Student > Master 13 15%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 15 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 21 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,846,160
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,672
of 31,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,416
of 364,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#117
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 364,270 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 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 69% of its contemporaries.