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.
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 |
In vitro Magnetic Stimulation: A Simple Stimulation Device to Deliver Defined Low Intensity Electromagnetic Fields
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neural Circuits, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncir.2016.00085 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stephanie Grehl, David Martina, Catherine Goyenvalle, Zhi-De Deng, Jennifer Rodger, Rachel M. Sherrard |
| Abstract |
Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) by electromagnetic fields appears to benefit human neurological and psychiatric conditions, although the optimal stimulation parameters and underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Although, in vitro studies have begun to elucidate cellular mechanisms, stimulation is delivered by a range of coils (from commercially available human stimulation coils to laboratory-built circuits) so that the electromagnetic fields induced within the tissue to produce the reported effects are ill-defined. Here, we develop a simple in vitro stimulation device with plug-and-play features that allow delivery of a range of stimulation parameters. We chose to test low intensity repetitive magnetic stimulation (LI-rMS) delivered at three frequencies to hindbrain explant cultures containing the olivocerebellar pathway. We used computational modeling to define the parameters of a stimulation circuit and coil that deliver a unidirectional homogeneous magnetic field of known intensity and direction, and therefore a predictable electric field, to the target. We built the coil to be compatible with culture requirements: stimulation within an incubator; a flat surface allowing consistent position and magnetic field direction; location outside the culture plate to maintain sterility and no heating or vibration. Measurements at the explant confirmed the induced magnetic field was homogenous and matched the simulation results. To validate our system we investigated biological effects following LI-rMS at 1 Hz, 10 Hz and biomimetic high frequency, which we have previously shown induces neural circuit reorganization. We found that gene expression was modified by LI-rMS in a frequency-related manner. Four hours after a single 10-min stimulation session, the number of c-fos positive cells increased, indicating that our stimulation activated the tissue. Also, after 14 days of LI-rMS, the expression of genes normally present in the tissue was differentially modified according to the stimulation delivered. Thus we describe a simple magnetic stimulation device that delivers defined stimulation parameters to different neural systems in vitro. Such devices are essential to further understanding of the fundamental effects of magnetic stimulation on biological tissue and optimize therapeutic application of human NIBS. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 79 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 8 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 18% |
| Unknown | 15 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 20 | 25% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#19,013,042
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#896
of 1,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,487
of 316,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neural Circuits
#19
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 316,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.