↓ Skip to main content

Disrupting neuronal transmission: mechanism of DBS?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Disrupting neuronal transmission: mechanism of DBS?
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, March 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satomi Chiken, Atsushi Nambu

Abstract

Applying high-frequency stimulation (HFS) to deep brain structure, known as deep brain stimulation (DBS), has now been recognized an effective therapeutic option for a wide range of neurological and psychiatric disorders. DBS targeting the basal ganglia thalamo-cortical loop, especially the internal segment of the globus pallidus (GPi), subthalamic nucleus (STN) and thalamus, has been widely employed as a successful surgical therapy for movement disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, dystonia and tremor. However, the neurophysiological mechanism underling the action of DBS remains unclear and is still under debate: does DBS inhibit or excite local neuronal elements? In this review, we will examine this question and propose the alternative interpretation: DBS dissociates inputs and outputs, resulting in disruption of abnormal signal transmission.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
France 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 138 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 16%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Student > Master 18 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 43 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 10%
Engineering 12 8%
Psychology 8 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 34 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 March 2014.
All research outputs
#15,296,915
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#959
of 1,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,955
of 220,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 220,990 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.