↓ Skip to main content

Comparative performance of a genetically-encoded voltage indicator and a blue voltage sensitive dye for large scale cortical voltage imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Comparative performance of a genetically-encoded voltage indicator and a blue voltage sensitive dye for large scale cortical voltage imaging
Published in
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fncel.2015.00147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hiroki Mutoh, Yukiko Mishina, Yasir Gallero-Salas, Thomas Knöpfel

Abstract

Traditional small molecule voltage sensitive dye indicators have been a powerful tool for monitoring large scale dynamics of neuronal activities but have several limitations including the lack of cell class specific targeting, invasiveness and difficulties in conducting longitudinal studies. Recent advances in the development of genetically-encoded voltage indicators have successfully overcome these limitations. Genetically-encoded voltage indicators (GEVIs) provide sufficient sensitivity to map cortical representations of sensory information and spontaneous network activities across cortical areas and different brain states. In this study, we directly compared the performance of a prototypic GEVI, VSFP2.3, with that of a widely used small molecule voltage sensitive dye (VSD), RH1691, in terms of their ability to resolve mesoscopic scale cortical population responses. We used three synchronized CCD cameras to simultaneously record the dual emission ratiometric fluorescence signal from VSFP2.3 and RH1691 fluorescence. The results show that VSFP2.3 offers more stable and less invasive recording conditions, while the signal-to-noise level and the response dynamics to sensory inputs are comparable to RH1691 recordings.

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 2 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 67 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 31%
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 26%
Neuroscience 17 24%
Engineering 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 14 20%
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 30 May 2015.
All research outputs
#16,762,691
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#2,893
of 4,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,041
of 270,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#83
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 270,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.