The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 |
Slow-Frequency Pulsed Transcranial Electrical Stimulation for Modulation of Cortical Plasticity Based on Reciprocity Targeting with Precision Electrical Head Modeling
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00377 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Phan Luu, Easwara Moorthy Essaki Arumugam, Erik Anderson, Amanda Gunn, Dennis Rech, Sergei Turovets, Don M. Tucker |
| Abstract |
In pain management as well as other clinical applications of neuromodulation, it is important to consider the timing parameters influencing activity-dependent plasticity, including pulsed versus sustained currents, as well as the spatial action of electrical currents as they polarize the complex convolutions of the cortical mantle. These factors are of course related; studying temporal factors is not possible when the spatial resolution of current delivery to the cortex is so uncertain to make it unclear whether excitability is increased or decreased with anodal vs. cathodal current flow. In the present study we attempted to improve the targeting of specific cortical locations by applying current through flexible source-sink configurations of 256 electrodes in a geodesic array. We constructed a precision electric head model for 12 healthy individuals. Extraction of the individual's cortical surface allowed computation of the component of the induced current that is normal to the target cortical surface. In an effort to replicate the long-term depression (LTD) induced with pulsed protocols in invasive animal research and transcranial magnetic stimulation studies, we applied 100 ms pulses at 1.9 s intervals either in cortical-surface-anodal or cortical-surface-cathodal directions, with a placebo (sham) control. The results showed significant LTD of the motor evoked potential as a result of the cortical-surface-cathodal pulses in contrast to the placebo control, with a smaller but similar LTD effect for anodal pulses. The cathodal LTD after-effect was sustained over 90 min following current injection. These results support the feasibility of pulsed protocols with low total charge in non-invasive neuromodulation when the precision of targeting is improved with a dense electrode array and accurate head modeling. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 108 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 20% |
| Researcher | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 20 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 14% |
| Psychology | 13 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 9% |
| Engineering | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 29% |
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 20 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,268,952
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,587
of 7,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,030
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#114
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,170 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.