↓ Skip to main content

Dose-response relationships using brain–computer interface technology impact stroke rehabilitation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Dose-response relationships using brain–computer interface technology impact stroke rehabilitation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brittany M. Young, Zack Nigogosyan, Léo M. Walton, Alexander Remsik, Jie Song, Veena A. Nair, Mitchell E. Tyler, Dorothy F. Edwards, Kristin Caldera, Justin A. Sattin, Justin C. Williams, Vivek Prabhakaran

Abstract

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are an emerging novel technology for stroke rehabilitation. Little is known about how dose-response relationships for BCI therapies affect brain and behavior changes. We report preliminary results on stroke patients (n = 16, 11 M) with persistent upper extremity motor impairment who received therapy using a BCI system with functional electrical stimulation of the hand and tongue stimulation. We collected MRI scans and behavioral data using the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), 9-Hole Peg Test (9-HPT), and Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) before, during, and after the therapy period. Using anatomical and functional MRI, we computed Laterality Index (LI) for brain activity in the motor network during impaired hand finger tapping. Changes from baseline LI and behavioral scores were assessed for relationships with dose, intensity, and frequency of BCI therapy. We found that gains in SIS Strength were directly responsive to BCI therapy: therapy dose and intensity correlated positively with increased SIS Strength (p ≤ 0.05), although no direct relationships were identified with ARAT or 9-HPT scores. We found behavioral measures that were not directly sensitive to differences in BCI therapy administration but were associated with concurrent brain changes correlated with BCI therapy administration parameters: therapy dose and intensity showed significant (p ≤ 0.05) or trending (0.05 < p < 0.1) negative correlations with LI changes, while therapy frequency did not affect LI. Reductions in LI were then correlated (p ≤ 0.05) with increased SIS Activities of Daily Living scores and improved 9-HPT performance. Therefore, some behavioral changes may be reflected by brain changes sensitive to differences in BCI therapy administration, while others such as SIS Strength may be directly responsive to BCI therapy administration. Data preliminarily suggest that when using BCI in stroke rehabilitation, therapy frequency may be less important than dose and intensity.

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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Unknown 129 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Researcher 15 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 31 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 16%
Engineering 20 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Computer Science 7 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 33 25%
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 17 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,867,545
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,375
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,192
of 265,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#137
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 265,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.