The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences

David R Gruber

doi:10.22323/2.15020201

The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences

3 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

Mirror neurons (MN) — or neurons said to be able to "mirror" the sensed environment — have been widely popularized and referenced across many academic fields. Yet, MNs have also been the subject of considerable debate in the neurosciences. Using a criterion based sampling method and a citation analysis, this paper examines the extent of engagement with the neuroscience literature about MNs, looking specifically at the frequency of "MN debate sources" within articles published in the JSTOR and Communication and Mass Media (CMMC) databases. After reporting the results, the paper reviews characteristic examples in context and, ultimately, shows that MN debates remain largely absent from peer-reviewed articles published in JSTOR and CMMC. However, the paper suggests that this happens for good reason and that MNs retain the potential for inventive animations even though debates have gone largely unrecognized.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Journal of Science Communication
Vol/bind	15
Udgave nummer	2
Antal sider	17
ISSN	1824-2049
DOI	https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020201
Status	Udgivet - 2016
Udgivet eksternt	Ja

Adgang til dokumentet

10.22323/2.15020201Licens: CC BY-NC-ND

Citationsformater

@article{13e07448f8d34983853c0fa757d61c46,

title = "The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences",

abstract = "Mirror neurons (MN) — or neurons said to be able to {"}mirror{"} the sensed environment — have been widely popularized and referenced across many academic fields. Yet, MNs have also been the subject of considerable debate in the neurosciences. Using a criterion based sampling method and a citation analysis, this paper examines the extent of engagement with the neuroscience literature about MNs, looking specifically at the frequency of {"}MN debate sources{"} within articles published in the JSTOR and Communication and Mass Media (CMMC) databases. After reporting the results, the paper reviews characteristic examples in context and, ultimately, shows that MN debates remain largely absent from peer-reviewed articles published in JSTOR and CMMC. However, the paper suggests that this happens for good reason and that MNs retain the potential for inventive animations even though debates have gone largely unrecognized.",

author = "Gruber, {David R}",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.22323/2.15020201",

language = "English",

volume = "15",

journal = "Journal of Science Communication",

issn = "1824-2049",

publisher = "Sissa Medialab",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences

AU - Gruber, David R

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Mirror neurons (MN) — or neurons said to be able to "mirror" the sensed environment — have been widely popularized and referenced across many academic fields. Yet, MNs have also been the subject of considerable debate in the neurosciences. Using a criterion based sampling method and a citation analysis, this paper examines the extent of engagement with the neuroscience literature about MNs, looking specifically at the frequency of "MN debate sources" within articles published in the JSTOR and Communication and Mass Media (CMMC) databases. After reporting the results, the paper reviews characteristic examples in context and, ultimately, shows that MN debates remain largely absent from peer-reviewed articles published in JSTOR and CMMC. However, the paper suggests that this happens for good reason and that MNs retain the potential for inventive animations even though debates have gone largely unrecognized.

AB - Mirror neurons (MN) — or neurons said to be able to "mirror" the sensed environment — have been widely popularized and referenced across many academic fields. Yet, MNs have also been the subject of considerable debate in the neurosciences. Using a criterion based sampling method and a citation analysis, this paper examines the extent of engagement with the neuroscience literature about MNs, looking specifically at the frequency of "MN debate sources" within articles published in the JSTOR and Communication and Mass Media (CMMC) databases. After reporting the results, the paper reviews characteristic examples in context and, ultimately, shows that MN debates remain largely absent from peer-reviewed articles published in JSTOR and CMMC. However, the paper suggests that this happens for good reason and that MNs retain the potential for inventive animations even though debates have gone largely unrecognized.

U2 - 10.22323/2.15020201

DO - 10.22323/2.15020201

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1824-2049

VL - 15

JO - Journal of Science Communication

JF - Journal of Science Communication

IS - 2

ER -

The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater