↓ Skip to main content

Mismatch Negativity Latency as a Biomarker of Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Rural Elders

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Mismatch Negativity Latency as a Biomarker of Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment in Chinese Rural Elders
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00022
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-Li Ji, Yuan-Yuan Zhang, Lane Zhang, Bing He, Guo-Hua Lu

Abstract

The aim was to evaluate the mismatch negativity (MMN) component, a correlate of the automatic detection of changes in the acoustic environment, in healthy adults, and adults with amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI). Forty-three aMCI subjects and 43 healthy Chinese older adults were arranged into experimental group and control group, respectively. Their MMN amplitude and latency were measured at the FZ, FCZ, and CZ electrode sites under a passive auditory oddball task. The results showed that the latencies obtained from the FZ, FCZ, and CZ electrode sites were significantly longer in the aMCI adults than in the control adults (P  < 0.01) while there were no significant differences in MMN amplitude between two groups (P  > 0.05). The MMN latency was found to be a sensitive and specific biomarker of aMCI.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

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

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 19%
Student > Master 5 19%
Other 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 22%
Neuroscience 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#4,172,844
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,992
of 4,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,995
of 259,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 259,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.