↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the Evidence Surrounding Pontine Cholinergic Involvement in REM Sleep Generation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Evaluating the Evidence Surrounding Pontine Cholinergic Involvement in REM Sleep Generation
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00190
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin P. Grace, Richard L. Horner

Abstract

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep - characterized by vivid dreaming, motor paralysis, and heightened neural activity - is one of the fundamental states of the mammalian central nervous system. Initial theories of REM sleep generation posited that induction of the state required activation of the "pontine REM sleep generator" by cholinergic inputs. Here, we review and evaluate the evidence surrounding cholinergic involvement in REM sleep generation. We submit that: (i) the capacity of pontine cholinergic neurotransmission to generate REM sleep has been firmly established by gain-of-function experiments, (ii) the function of endogenous cholinergic input to REM sleep generating sites cannot be determined by gain-of-function experiments; rather, loss-of-function studies are required, (iii) loss-of-function studies show that endogenous cholinergic input to the PTF is not required for REM sleep generation, and (iv) cholinergic input to the pontine REM sleep generating sites serve an accessory role in REM sleep generation: reinforcing non-REM-to-REM sleep transitions making them quicker and less likely to fail.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 47 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 18 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 9 18%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,772,019
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,059
of 11,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,036
of 266,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#40
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 266,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.