↓ Skip to main content

A critical reflection on the technological development of deep brain stimulation (DBS)

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
A critical reflection on the technological development of deep brain stimulation (DBS)
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00730
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Ineichen, Walter Glannon, Yasin Temel, Christian R. Baumann, Oguzkan Sürücü

Abstract

Since the translational research findings of Benabid and colleagues which partly led to their seminal paper regarding the treatment of mainly tremor-dominant Parkinson patients through thalamic high-frequency-stimulation (HFS) in 1987, we still struggle with identifying a satisfactory mechanistic explanation of the underlying principles of deep brain stimulation (DBS). Furthermore, the technological advance of DBS devices (electrodes and implantable pulse generators, IPG's) has shown a distinct lack of dynamic progression. In light of this we argue that it is time to leave the paleolithic age and enter hellenistic times: the device-manufacturing industry and the medical community together should put more emphasis on advancing the technology rather than resting on their laurels.

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 profiles of 8 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
China 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 68 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 21%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Engineering 9 13%
Psychology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 20 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#6,535,395
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,675
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,465
of 251,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#118
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 251,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 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 53% of its contemporaries.