↓ Skip to main content

Does Neural Input or Processing Play a Greater Role in the Magnitude of Neuroimaging Signals?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroenergetics, January 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Does Neural Input or Processing Play a Greater Role in the Magnitude of Neuroimaging Signals?
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroenergetics, January 2010
DOI 10.3389/fnene.2010.00015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sam Harris, Myles Jones, Ying Zheng, Jason Berwick

Abstract

An important constraint on how hemodynamic neuroimaging signals such as fMRI can be interpreted in terms of the underlying evoked activity is an understanding of neurovascular coupling mechanisms that actually generate hemodynamic responses. The predominant view at present is that the hemodynamic response is most correlated with synaptic input and subsequent neural processing rather than spiking output. It is still not clear whether input or processing is more important in the generation of hemodynamics responses. In order to investigate this we measured the hemodynamic and neural responses to electrical whisker pad stimuli in rat whisker barrel somatosensory cortex both before and after the local cortical injections of the GABA(A) agonist muscimol. Muscimol would not be expected to affect the thalamocortical input into the cortex but would inhibit subsequent intra-cortical processing. Pre-muscimol infusion whisker stimuli elicited the expected neural and accompanying hemodynamic responses to that reported previously. Following infusion of muscimol, although the temporal profile of neural responses to each pulse of the stimulus train was similar, the average response was reduced in magnitude by approximately 79% compared to that elicited pre-infusion. The whisker-evoked hemodynamic responses were reduced by a commensurate magnitude suggesting that, although the neurovascular coupling relationships were similar for synaptic input as well as for cortical processing, the magnitude of the overall response is dominated by processing rather than from that produced from the thalamocortical input alone.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 5%
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
China 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 49 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 22%
Professor 7 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 9%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 24%
Neuroscience 12 21%
Engineering 10 17%
Psychology 8 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 5 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 October 2011.
All research outputs
#3,249,865
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
#7
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,353
of 163,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroenergetics
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one scored the same or higher as 32 of them.
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 163,463 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.