↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of walking overground and in a Computer Assisted Rehabilitation Environment (CAREN) in individuals with and without transtibial amputation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
Comparison of walking overground and in a Computer Assisted Rehabilitation Environment (CAREN) in individuals with and without transtibial amputation
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-9-81
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deanna H Gates, Benjamin J Darter, Jonathan B Dingwell, Jason M Wilken

Abstract

Due to increased interest in treadmill gait training, recent research has focused on the similarities and differences between treadmill and overground walking. Most of these studies have tested healthy, young subjects rather than impaired populations that might benefit from such training. These studies also do not include optic flow, which may change how the individuals integrate sensory information when walking on a treadmill. This study compared overground walking to treadmill walking in a computer assisted virtual reality environment (CAREN) in individuals with and without transtibial amputations (TTA).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 168 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 18%
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Student > Master 23 13%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 34 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 37 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 28 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 10%
Sports and Recreations 12 7%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 52 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2012.
All research outputs
#13,273,003
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#631
of 1,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,424
of 179,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,277 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 179,003 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.