↓ Skip to main content

Post-Cueing Deficits with Maintained Cueing Benefits in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease Dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Post-Cueing Deficits with Maintained Cueing Benefits in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease Dementia
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, November 2014
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2014.00236
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Gräber, Inga Liepelt-Scarfone, Ilona Csoti, Walter Maetzler, Fahad Sultan, Daniela Berg

Abstract

In Parkinson's disease (PD), internal cueing mechanisms are impaired leading to symptoms like hypokinesia. However, external cues can improve movement execution by using cortical resources. These cortical processes can be affected by cognitive decline in dementia. It is still unclear how dementia in PD influences external cueing. We investigated a group of 25 PD patients with dementia (PDD) and 25 non-demented PD patients (PDnD) matched by age, sex, and disease duration in a simple reaction time task using an additional acoustic cue. PDD patients benefited from the additional cue in similar magnitude as did PDnD patients. However, withdrawal of the cue led to a significantly increased reaction time in the PDD group compared to the PDnD patients. Our results indicate that even PDD patients can benefit from strategies using external cue presentation but the process of cognitive worsening can reduce the effect when cues are withdrawn.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Engineering 2 7%
Psychology 2 7%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,789,596
of 22,770,070 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,082
of 11,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,454
of 360,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,770,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 360,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.