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

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences. / Gruber, David R.

In: Journal of Science Communication, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2016.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Gruber, DR 2016, 'The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences', Journal of Science Communication, vol. 15, no. 2. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020201

APA

Gruber, D. R. (2016). The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Science Communication, 15(2). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020201

Vancouver

Gruber DR. The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Science Communication. 2016;15(2). https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15020201

Author

Gruber, David R. / The extent of engagement, the means of invention: measuring debate about mirror neurons in the humanities and social sciences. In: Journal of Science Communication. 2016 ; Vol. 15, No. 2.

Bibtex

@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",

}

RIS

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

VL - 15

JO - Journal of Science Communication

JF - Journal of Science Communication

SN - 1824-2049

IS - 2

ER -

ID: 215412482