The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 |
Selective Effects of Postural Control on Spatial vs. Nonspatial Working Memory: A Functional Near-Infrared Spectral Imaging Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00243 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yifan Chen, Yanglan Yu, Ruoyu Niu, Ying Liu |
| Abstract |
Background: Previous evidence suggests that postural control processing may be more related to spatial working memory (SWM) than to nonspatial working memory (NWM). Methodological discrepancies between spatial and nonspatial cognitive tasks have made direct comparisons between the two systems difficult. Methods: To explore the neural mechanisms of SWM and NWM relative to that of postural control, participants were subjected a cognitive-posture dual-task paradigm, consisting of a 3-back letter working memory (WM) task, using physically identical stimuli with spatial and nonspatial components memorized in different sessions, and a standing balance task with a tandem stance. Additionally, there were two control sessions: a single-postural control session wherein participants pressed mouse buttons at random while standing; and a single-cognitive task control session wherein subjects completed a WM task while seated. The subjects underwent functional near-infrared spectral imaging (fNIRS) during task performance, wherein oxygenated hemoglobin concentration ([HbO]) was measured in frontal and parietal regions. Results: Postural control reduced discernment in the SWM task significantly, but did not affect NWM task performance. fNIRS showed that postural control had a significant tendency to decrease the [HbO] in the frontal-parietal network of the left hemisphere when participants completed the SWM task. No posture-associated differences in [HbO] were observed in NWM-related areas during NWM task performance. Behavioral and fNIRS data demonstrated that postural control had a selective interaction with SWM. Specifically, postural control reduced SWM discrimination and SWM-related brain activity (frontal-parietal network), but not NWM discrimination or NWM-related brain activity. Furthermore, the multiple linear regression analysis showed that SWM, but not NWM, was an important predictor of postural control. These results suggest that postural control may share more cognitive resources with SWM than with NWM. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 17% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 8% |
| Psychology | 4 | 8% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 23 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,374,110
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,735
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,314
of 329,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#85
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 329,621 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 50% 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 is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.