The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Critical Review: Coupling and Synchronization Analysis Methods of EEG Signal with Mild Cognitive Impairment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00054 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dong Wen, Yanhong Zhou, Xiaoli Li |
| Abstract |
At present, the clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients becomes the important approach of evaluating early Alzheimer's disease. The methods of EEG signal coupling and synchronization act as a key role in evaluating and diagnosing MCI patients. Recently, these coupling and synchronization methods were used to analyze the EEG signals of MCI patients according to different angles, and many important discoveries have been achieved. However, considering that every method is single-faceted in solving problems, these methods have various deficiencies when analyzing EEG signals of MCI patients. This paper reviewed in detail the coupling and synchronization analysis methods, analyzed their advantages and disadvantages, and proposed a few research questions needed to solve in the future. Also, the principles and best performances of these methods were described. It is expected that the performance analysis of these methods can provide the theoretical basis for the method selection of analyzing EEG signals of MCI patients and the future research directions. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 24% |
| Researcher | 18 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 16% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 26 | 21% |
| Engineering | 20 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 16 | 13% |
| Unknown | 34 | 28% |
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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#4,174,441
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#1,993
of 4,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,262
of 264,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#29
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 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 4,769 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 264,916 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.