↓ Skip to main content

Mechanism of Action for rTMS: A Working Hypothesis Based on Animal Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Mechanism of Action for rTMS: A Working Hypothesis Based on Animal Studies
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00457
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thangavelu Soundara Rajan, Maria F. M. Ghilardi, Hoau-Yan Wang, Emanuela Mazzon, Placido Bramanti, Domenico Restivo, Angelo Quartarone

Abstract

Experiments in rodents have elucidated some of the molecular mechanisms underlying repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). These studies may be useful in a translational perspective so that future TMS studies in rodents can closely match human TMS protocols designed for therapeutic purposes. In the present work we will review the effects of rTMS on glutamate neurotransmission which in turn induce persistent changes in synaptic activity. In particular, we will focus on the role of NMDA and non-NMDA transmission and on the permissive role of BDNF-TrKB interaction in the rTMS induced after-effects.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Other 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Master 8 8%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 31 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 28 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Psychology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 37 38%
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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,467,628
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#6,731
of 13,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,955
of 314,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#154
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 314,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 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.