↓ Skip to main content

Predicted Selective Increase of Cortical Magnification Due to Cortical Folding

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Predicted Selective Increase of Cortical Magnification Due to Cortical Folding
Published in
The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/2190-8567-2-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

A Markus Dahlem, Jan Tusch

Abstract

The cortical magnification matrix M is introduced founded on a notion similar to that of the scalar cortical magnification factor M. Unlike M, this matrix is suitable to describe anisotropy in cortical magnification, which is of particular interest in the highly gyrified human cerebral cortex. The advantage of our tensor method over other surface-based 3D methods to explore cortical morphometry is that M expresses cortical quantities in the corresponding sensory space. It allows us to investigate the spatial relation between sensory function and anatomical structure. To this end, we consider the calcarine sulcus (CS) as an anatomical landmark for the primary visual cortex (V1). We found that a stereotypically formed 3D model of V1 compared to a flat model explains an excess of cortical tissue for the representation of visual information coming from the horizon of the visual field. This suggests that the intrinsic geometry of this sulcus is adapted to encephalize a particular function along the horizon. Since visual functions are assumed to be M-scaled, cortical folding can serve as an anatomical basis for increased functionality on the horizon similar to a retinal specialization known as visual streak, which is found in animals with lower encephalization. Thus, the gain of surface area by cortical folding links anatomical structure to cortical function in a previously unrecognized way, which may guide sulci development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Netherlands 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 4 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 7 25%
Psychology 5 18%
Neuroscience 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Physics and Astronomy 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,673,866
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience
#53
of 80 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,856
of 261,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Mathematical Neuroscience
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 80 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 261,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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.