↓ Skip to main content

Proposal for research and education: joint lectures and practicals on central nervous system anatomy and physiology

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Physiological Sciences, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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
Proposal for research and education: joint lectures and practicals on central nervous system anatomy and physiology
Published in
The Journal of Physiological Sciences, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12576-015-0428-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ikuo Kageyama, Ken Yoshimura, Yoshihide Satoh, Chinthani D. Nanayakkara, Ranjith W. Pallegama, Shin-ichi Iwasaki

Abstract

We coordinated anatomy and physiology lectures and practicals to facilitate an integrated understanding of morphology and function in a basic medical science program for dental students and to reduce the time spent on basic science education. This method is a means to provide the essential information and skills in less time. The overall impression was that the practice of joint central nervous system lectures and practicals was an efficient method for students, which suggests that joint lectures might also be useful for clinical subjects. About two-thirds of students felt that the joint anatomy and physiology lecture on the central nervous system was useful and necessary in understanding the relationship between morphology and function, at least for this subject. One-third of students were neutral on the effectiveness of this method. However, the survey results suggest that improvements are needed in the method and timing of joint lectures and practicals. The present teaching approach can be further improved by conducting combined lectures in which the form and function of anatomic structures are presented by the relevant departments during the same lecture. Finally, joint lecturers and practicals offer an opportunity to increase student understanding of the importance of new research findings by the present authors and other researchers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 33%
Professor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Librarian 1 8%
Student > Bachelor 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
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 08 June 2016.
All research outputs
#18,810,041
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#200
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,105
of 394,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Physiological Sciences
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 394,718 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.