The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 |
No Differential Effects of Two Different Alpha-Band Electrical Stimulation Protocols Over Fronto-Parietal Regions on Spatial Attention
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2018.00433 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martine R. van Schouwenburg, Lynn K. A. Sörensen, Raza de Klerk, Leon C. Reteig, Heleen A. Slagter |
| Abstract |
In a previous study using transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), we found preliminary evidence that phase coherence in the alpha band (8-12 Hz) within the fronto-parietal network may critically support top-down control of spatial attention (van Schouwenburg et al., 2017). Specifically, synchronous alpha-band stimulation over the right frontal and parietal cortex (0° relative phase) was associated with changes in performance and fronto-parietal coherence during a spatial attention task as compared to sham stimulation. In the current study, we firstly aimed to replicate these findings with synchronous tACS. Second, we extended our previous protocol by adding a second tACS condition in which the right frontal and parietal cortex were stimulated in a desynchronous fashion (180° relative phase), to test the specificity of the changes observed in our previous study. Participants (n = 23) were tested in three different sessions in which they received either synchronous, desynchronous, or sham stimulation over the right frontal and parietal cortex. In contrast to our previous study, we found no spatially selective effects of stimulation on behavior or coherence in either stimulation protocol compared to sham. We highlight some of the differences in study design that may have contributed to this discrepancy in findings and more generally may determine the effectiveness of tACS. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 27% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 55% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 75 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 19 | 25% |
| Psychology | 18 | 24% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 27 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#5,142,991
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#3,913
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,123
of 341,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#95
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 341,301 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 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.