The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 |
The TMS Motor Map Does Not Change Following a Single Session of Mirror Training Either with Or without Motor Imagery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00601 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark van de Ruit, Michael J. Grey |
| Abstract |
Both motor imagery and mirror training have been used in motor rehabilitation settings to promote skill learning and plasticity. As motor imagery and mirror training are suggested to be closely linked, it was hypothesized that mirror training augmented by motor imagery would increase corticospinal excitability (CSE) significantly compared to mirror training alone. Forty-four participants were split over two experimental groups. Each participant visited the laboratory once to receive either mirror training alone or mirror training augmented with layered stimulus response training (LSRT), a type of motor imagery training. Participants performed 16 min of mirror training, making repetitive grasping movements paced by a metronome. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) mapping was performed before and after the mirror training to test for changes in CSE of the untrained hand. Self-reports suggested that the imagery training was effective in helping the participant to perform the mirror training task as instructed. Nonetheless, neither training type resulted in a significant change of TMS map area, nor was there an interaction between the groups. The results from the study revealed no effect of a single session of 16 min of either mirror training or mirror training enhanced by imagery on TMS map area. Despite the negative result of the present experiment, this does not suggest that either motor imagery or mirror training might be ineffective as a rehabilitation therapy. Further study is required to allow disentangling the role of imagery and action observation in mirror training so that mirror training can be further tailored to the individual according to their abilities. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 18 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 8 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 12% |
| Psychology | 5 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 37% |
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 25 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,573,826
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,080
of 7,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,825
of 439,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#98
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,190 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 439,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.