The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation: A New Strategy in Mild Cognitive Impairment?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00016 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Agustina Birba, Agustín Ibáñez, Lucas Sedeño, Jesica Ferrari, Adolfo M. García, Máximo Zimerman |
| Abstract |
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques can significantly modulate cognitive functions in healthy subjects and patients with neuropsychiatric disorders. Recently, they have been applied in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive impairment (SCI) to prevent or delay the development of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Here we review this emerging empirical corpus and discuss therapeutic effects of NIBS on several target functions (e.g., memory for face-name associations and non-verbal recognition, attention, psychomotor speed, everyday memory). Available studies have yielded mixed results, possibly due to differences among their tasks, designs, and samples, let alone the latter's small sizes. Thus, the impact of NIBS on cognitive performance in MCI and SCI remains to be determined. To foster progress in this direction, we outline methodological approaches that could improve the efficacy and specificity of NIBS in both conditions. Furthermore, we discuss the need for multicenter studies, accurate diagnosis, and longitudinal approaches combining NIBS with specific training regimes. These tenets could cement biomedical developments supporting new treatments for MCI and preventive therapies for AD. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 25% |
| Unknown | 6 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 63% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 209 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 206 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 31 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 55 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 41 | 20% |
| Psychology | 36 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 8% |
| Engineering | 9 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 72 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,022,765
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#2,345
of 4,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,479
of 426,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#61
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,828 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 51% 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 426,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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.