↓ Skip to main content

Postural Stabilization Differences in Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy during Self-Triggered Fast Forward Weight Lifting

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Postural Stabilization Differences in Idiopathic Parkinson’s Disease and Progressive Supranuclear Palsy during Self-Triggered Fast Forward Weight Lifting
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00743
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Kammermeier, Lucia Dietrich, Kathrin Maierbeck, Annika Plate, Stefan Lorenzl, Arun Singh, Ahmad Ahmadi, Kai Bötzel

Abstract

Progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) and late-stage idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD) are neurodegenerative movement disorders resulting in different postural instability and falling symptoms. IPD falls occur usually forward in late stage, whereas PSP falls happen in early stages, mostly backward, unprovoked, and with high morbidity. Self-triggered, weighted movements appear to provoke falls in IPD, but not in PSP. Repeated self-triggered lifting of a 0.5-1-kg weight (<2% of body weight) with the dominant hand was performed in 17 PSP, 15 IPD with falling history, and 16 controls on a posturography platform. PSP showed excessive force scaling of weight and body motion with high-frequency multiaxial body sway, whereas IPD presented a delayed-onset forward body displacement. Differences in center of mass displacement apparent at very small weights indicate that both syndromes decompensate postural control already within stability limits. PSP may be subject to specific postural system devolution. IPD are susceptible to delayed forward falling. Differential physiotherapy strategies are suggested.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 5 9%
Other 3 5%
Professor 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 13 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Neuroscience 5 9%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 35%
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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#20,461,148
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,932
of 11,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#378,230
of 441,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#160
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,914 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 441,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.