↓ Skip to main content

Tablet-Based Functional MRI of the Trail Making Test: Effect of Tablet Interaction Mode

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Tablet-Based Functional MRI of the Trail Making Test: Effect of Tablet Interaction Mode
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00496
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mahta Karimpoor, Nathan W. Churchill, Fred Tam, Corinne E. Fischer, Tom A. Schweizer, Simon J. Graham

Abstract

The Trail Making Test (TMT) is widely used for assessing executive function, frontal lobe abilities, and visual motor skills. Part A of this pen-and-paper test (TMT-A) involves linking numbers randomly distributed in space, in ascending order. Part B (TMT-B) alternates between linking numbers and letters. TMT-B is more demanding than TMT-A, but the mental processing that supports the performance of this test remains incompletely understood. Functional MRI (fMRI) may help to clarify the relationship between TMT performance and brain activity, but providing an environment that supports real-world pen-and-paper interactions during fMRI is challenging. Previously, an fMRI-compatible tablet system was developed for writing and drawing with two modes of interaction: the original cursor-based, proprioceptive approach, and a new mode involving augmented reality to provide visual feedback of hand position (VFHP) for enhanced user interaction. This study characterizes the use of the tablet during fMRI of young healthy adults (n = 22), with half of the subjects performing TMT with VFHP and the other half performing TMT without VFHP. Activation maps for both TMT-A and TMT-B performance showed considerable overlap between the two tablet modes, and no statistically differences in brain activity were detected when contrasting TMT-B vs. TMT-A for the two tablet modes. Behavioral results also showed no statistically different interaction effects for TMT-B vs. TMT-A for the two tablet modes. Tablet-based TMT scores showed reasonable convergent validity with those obtained by administering the standard pen-and-paper TMT to the same subjects. Overall, the results suggest that despite the slightly different mechanisms involved for the two modes of tablet interaction, both are suitable for use in fMRI studies involving TMT performance. This study provides information for using tablet-based TMT methods appropriately in future fMRI studies involving patients and healthy individuals.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 26 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 17%
Neuroscience 9 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 31 41%
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 10 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,174,641
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,557
of 7,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,590
of 326,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#60
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 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 7,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. 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 326,723 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 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 59% of its contemporaries.