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 |
The Gain-Time Constant Product Quantifies Total Vestibular Output in Bilateral Vestibular Loss
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00396 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Timothy C. Hain, Marcello Cherchi, Nicolas Perez-Fernandez |
| Abstract |
Patients with inner ear damage associated with bilateral vestibular impairment often ask "how much damage do I have." Although there are presently three clinical methods of measuring semicircular canal vestibular function; electronystagmography (ENG or VENG), rotatory chair and video head-impulse (VHIT) testing; none of these methods provides a method of measuring total vestibular output. Theory suggests that the slow cumulative eye position can be derived from the rotatory chair test by multiplying the high frequency gain by the time constant, or the "GainTc product." In this retrospective study, we compared the GainTc in three groups, 30 normal subjects, 25 patients with surgically induced unilateral vestibular loss, and 24 patients with absent or nearly absent vestibular responses due to gentamicin exposure. We found that the GainTc product correlated better with remaining vestibular function than either the gain or the time constant alone. The fraction of remaining vestibular function was predicted by the equation R = (GainTc/11.3) - 0.6. We suggest that the GainTc product answers the question "how much damage do I have," and is a better measure than other clinical tests of vestibular function. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 38% |
| Engineering | 2 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
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 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,978,863
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,193
of 12,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,121
of 328,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#185
of 318 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 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 12,001 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 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 328,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 318 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.