↓ Skip to main content

TMS-induced neural noise in sensory cortex interferes with short-term memory storage in prefrontal cortex

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
TMS-induced neural noise in sensory cortex interferes with short-term memory storage in prefrontal cortex
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2014.00023
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tyler D. Bancroft, Jeremy Hogeveen, William E. Hockley, Philip Servos

Abstract

In a previous study, Harris et al. (2002) found disruption of vibrotactile short-term memory after applying single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to primary somatosensory cortex (SI) early in the maintenance period, and suggested that this demonstrated a role for SI in vibrotactile memory storage. While such a role is compatible with recent suggestions that sensory cortex is the storage substrate for working memory, it stands in contrast to a relatively large body of evidence from human EEG and single-cell recording in primates that instead points to prefrontal cortex as the storage substrate for vibrotactile memory. In the present study, we use computational methods to demonstrate how Harris et al.'s results can be reproduced by TMS-induced activity in sensory cortex and subsequent feedforward interference with memory traces stored in prefrontal cortex, thereby reconciling discordant findings in the tactile memory literature.

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 4 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 20%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 22%
Unspecified 10 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 12%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 April 2014.
All research outputs
#14,366,444
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#595
of 1,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,775
of 225,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,403 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. 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 225,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.