The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 |
Technical Integration of Hippocampus, Basal Ganglia and Physical Models for Spatial Navigation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, March 2009
|
| DOI | 10.3389/neuro.11.006.2009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles Fox, Mark Humphries, Ben Mitchinson, Tamas Kiss, Zoltan Somogyvari, Tony Prescott |
| Abstract |
Computational neuroscience is increasingly moving beyond modeling individual neurons or neural systems to consider the integration of multiple models, often constructed by different research groups. We report on our preliminary technical integration of recent hippocampal formation, basal ganglia and physical environment models, together with visualisation tools, as a case study in the use of Python across the modelling tool-chain. We do not present new modeling results here. The architecture incorporates leaky-integrator and rate-coded neurons, a 3D environment with collision detection and tactile sensors, 3D graphics and 2D plots. We found Python to be a flexible platform, offering a significant reduction in development time, without a corresponding significant increase in execution time. We illustrate this by implementing a part of the model in various alternative languages and coding styles, and comparing their execution times. For very large-scale system integration, communication with other languages and parallel execution may be required, which we demonstrate using the BRAHMS framework's Python bindings. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 5 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 5% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 49 | 74% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 32% |
| Researcher | 14 | 21% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 6% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 16 | 24% |
| Computer Science | 15 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 17% |
| Engineering | 6 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 8% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 June 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#597
of 833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,814
of 107,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 107,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.