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 effect of magnocellular-based visual-motor intervention on Chinese children with developmental dyslexia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01529 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yi Qian, Hong-Yan Bi |
| Abstract |
Magnocellular (M) deficit theory points out that the core deficit of developmental dyslexia (DD) is the impairment in M pathway, which has been evidenced in many previous studies. Based on the M deficit, some researchers found that visual intervention focusing on M deficit improved dyslexics' M function as well as reading abilities. However, the number and reliability of these training studies were limited. Therefore, the present study conducted an M-based visual-motor intervention on Chinese children with DD to investigate the relationship between M deficit and Chinese DD. Intervention programs included coherent motion detection, visual search, visual tracking, and juggling, which were related to M function. The results showed that M function and phonological awareness of training dyslexic group were improved to a normal level as age-matched normal children after intervention, while non-training dyslexics did not. It supported M deficit theory, and suggested M deficit might be the core deficit of Chinese DD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 4% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 32 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 37 | 38% |
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 02 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,698,802
of 22,829,683 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,900
of 29,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,637
of 277,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#322
of 531 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 277,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 531 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.