↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The embodied and relational nature of the mind: implications for clinical interventions in aging individuals and populations

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
The embodied and relational nature of the mind: implications for clinical interventions in aging individuals and populations
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, January 2013
DOI 10.2147/cia.s44797
Pubmed ID
Authors

W. Jack Rejeski, Gauvin, W Jack Rejeski, Lise Gauvin

Abstract

Considerable research over the past decade has garnered support for the notion that the mind is both embodied and relational. Jointly, these terms imply that the brain, physical attributes of the self, and features of our interpersonal relationships and of the environments in which we live jointly regulate energy and information flow; they codetermine how we think, feel, and behave both individually and collectively. In addition to direct experience, evidence supports the view that stimuli embedded within past memories trigger multimodal simulations throughout the body and brain to literally recreate lived experience. In this paper, we review empirical support for the concept of an embodied and relational mind and then reflect on the implications of this perspective for clinical interventions in aging individuals and populations. Data suggest that environmental influences literally "get under the skin" with aging; that musculoskeletal and visceral sensations become more prominent in activities of the mind due to aging biological systems and chronic disease. We argue that conceiving the mind as embodied and relational will grow scientific inquiry in aging, transform how we think about the self-system and well-being, and lead us to rethink health promotion interventions aimed at aging individuals and populations.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
Switzerland 1 2%
Peru 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Czechia 1 2%
Unknown 39 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 33%
Student > Master 13 29%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 9 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Sports and Recreations 4 9%
Unspecified 3 7%
Other 11 24%

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 09 June 2013.
All research outputs
#10,766,892
of 13,534,432 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,116
of 1,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,835
of 152,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#45
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,534,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,383 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 152,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.