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.
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 |
Predicting Gains With Visuospatial Training After Stroke Using an EEG Measure of Frontoparietal Circuit Function
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2018.00597 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robert J. Zhou, Hossein M. Hondori, Maryam Khademi, Jessica M. Cassidy, Katherine M. Wu, Derek Z. Yang, Nikhita Kathuria, Fareshte R. Erani, Lucy Dodakian, Alison McKenzie, Cristina V. Lopes, Walt Scacchi, Ramesh Srinivasan, Steven C. Cramer |
| Abstract |
The heterogeneity of stroke prompts the need for predictors of individual treatment response to rehabilitation therapies. We previously studied healthy subjects with EEG and identified a frontoparietal circuit in which activity predicted training-related gains in visuomotor tracking. Here we asked whether activity in this same frontoparietal circuit also predicts training-related gains in visuomotor tracking in patients with chronic hemiparetic stroke. Subjects (n = 12) underwent dense-array EEG recording at rest, then received 8 sessions of visuomotor tracking training delivered via home-based telehealth methods. Subjects showed significant training-related gains in the primary behavioral endpoint, Success Rate score on a standardized test of visuomotor tracking, increasing an average of 24.2 ± 21.9% (p = 0.003). Activity in the circuit of interest, measured as coherence (20-30 Hz) between leads overlying ipsilesional frontal (motor cortex) and parietal lobe, significantly predicted training-related gains in visuomotor tracking change, measured as change in Success Rate score (r = 0.61, p = 0.037), supporting the main study hypothesis. Results were specific to the hypothesized ipsilesional motor-parietal circuit, as coherence within other circuits did not predict training-related gains. Analyses were repeated after removing the four subjects with injury to motor or parietal areas; this increased the strength of the association between activity in the circuit of interest and training-related gains. The current study found that (1) Eight sessions of training can significantly improve performance on a visuomotor task in patients with chronic stroke, (2) this improvement can be realized using home-based telehealth methods, (3) an EEG-based measure of frontoparietal circuit function predicts training-related behavioral gains arising from that circuit, as hypothesized and with specificity, and (4) incorporating measures of both neural function and neural injury improves prediction of stroke rehabilitation therapy effects. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 27 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 12% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 12% |
| Engineering | 9 | 11% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 36% |
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 16 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,136,687
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,541
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,315
of 329,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#128
of 310 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 329,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 310 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 56% of its contemporaries.