↓ Skip to main content

On the assessment of coordination between upper extremities: towards a common language between rehabilitation engineers, clinicians and neuroscientists

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2016
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
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
On the assessment of coordination between upper extremities: towards a common language between rehabilitation engineers, clinicians and neuroscientists
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12984-016-0186-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camila Shirota, Jelka Jansa, Javier Diaz, Sivakumar Balasubramanian, Stefano Mazzoleni, N. Alberto Borghese, Alejandro Melendez-Calderon

Abstract

Well-developed coordination of the upper extremities is critical for function in everyday life. Interlimb coordination is an intuitive, yet subjective concept that refers to spatio-temporal relationships between kinematic, kinetic and physiological variables of two or more limbs executing a motor task with a common goal. While both the clinical and neuroscience communities agree on the relevance of assessing and quantifying interlimb coordination, rehabilitation engineers struggle to translate the knowledge and needs of clinicians and neuroscientists into technological devices for the impaired. The use of ambiguous definitions in the scientific literature, and lack of common agreement on what should be measured, present large barriers to advancements in this area. Here, we present the different definitions and approaches to assess and quantify interlimb coordination in the clinic, in motor control studies, and by state-of-the-art robotic devices. We then propose a taxonomy of interlimb activities and give recommendations for future neuroscience-based robotic- and sensor-based assessments of upper limb function that are applicable to the everyday clinical practice. We believe this is the first step towards our long-term goal of unifying different fields and help the generation of more consistent and effective tools for neurorehabilitation.

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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 41 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 45 27%
Neuroscience 17 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Computer Science 10 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 50 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 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#12,670,959
of 22,886,568 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#552
of 1,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,229
of 332,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,886,568 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,284 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 55% 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 332,538 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 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.