↓ Skip to main content

Language Learning Variability within the Dorsal and Ventral Streams as a Cue for Compensatory Mechanisms in Aphasia Recovery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Language Learning Variability within the Dorsal and Ventral Streams as a Cue for Compensatory Mechanisms in Aphasia Recovery
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00476
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana López-Barroso, Ruth de Diego-Balaguer

Abstract

Dorsal and ventral pathways connecting perisylvian language areas have been shown to be functionally and anatomically segregated. Whereas the dorsal pathway integrates the sensory-motor information required for verbal repetition, the ventral pathway has classically been associated with semantic processes. The great individual differences characterizing language learning through life partly correlate with brain structure and function within these dorsal and ventral language networks. Variability and plasticity within these networks also underlie inter-individual differences in the recovery of linguistic abilities in aphasia. Despite the division of labor of the dorsal and ventral streams, studies in healthy individuals have shown how the interaction of them and the redundancy in the areas they connect allow for compensatory strategies in functions that are usually segregated. In this mini-review we highlight the need to examine compensatory mechanisms between streams in healthy individuals as a helpful guide to choosing the most appropriate rehabilitation strategies, using spared functions and targeting preserved compensatory networks for brain plasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 25%
Neuroscience 10 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 10%
Linguistics 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 27 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,169,656
of 25,247,084 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,003
of 7,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,692
of 326,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#21
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,247,084 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 326,668 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.