| Title |
Neuroethology has pregnant agendas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Comparative Physiology A, October 1999
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s003590050389 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. H. Bullock |
| Abstract |
Two of the many agendas of neuroethology are illustrated with examples. The first issue is what cells or assemblies of cells and what patterns of activity are sufficient to accomplish recognition of ethologically important stimulus configurations and initiation of behavioral action. The theme is the opportunities available in relatively neglected approaches to these objectives. As an example, the approach is developed of gentle microstimulation of loci in the brain where cells have been found to be responsive to complex, natural stimuli, under conditions conducive to the performance of tell-tale behavior. Other approaches include: (a) microinjection of modulatory substances into regions with such complex recognition cells, and (b) recording in efficient and informative ways, by using multiple electrode arrays, registering wideband activity, in behaving animals. The second issue is what brain and behavior differences has evolution produced between major taxa at distinct grades of complexity. Emphasized are our relative ignorance of basic aspects of connectivity, physiology and cognitive capacities in the major grades and the probability of surprises from new studies that employ comparison. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 10% |
| Germany | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 23 | 79% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 28% |
| Professor | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 7% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 38% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 21% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 2 | 7% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 10% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#8,533,995
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#514
of 1,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,570
of 35,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology A
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 35,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 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.