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 |
Cortical processes of speech illusions in the general population
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Neuroscience, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12868-016-0301-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Schepers, L. Bodar, J. van Os, R. Lousberg |
| Abstract |
There is evidence that experimentally elicited auditory illusions in the general population index risk for psychotic symptoms. As little is known about underlying cortical mechanisms of auditory illusions, an experiment was conducted to analyze processing of auditory illusions in a general population sample. In a follow-up design with two measurement moments (baseline and 6 months), participants (n = 83) underwent the White Noise task under simultaneous recording with a 14-lead EEG. An auditory illusion was defined as hearing any speech in a sound fragment containing white noise. A total number of 256 speech illusions (SI) were observed over the two measurements, with a high degree of stability of SI over time. There were 7 main effects of speech illusion on the EEG alpha band-the most significant indicating a decrease in activity at T3 (t = -4.05). Other EEG frequency bands (slow beta, fast beta, gamma, delta, theta) showed no significant associations with SI. SIs are characterized by reduced alpha activity in non-clinical populations. Given the association of SIs with psychosis, follow-up research is required to examine the possibility of reduced alpha activity mediating SIs in high risk and symptomatic populations. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 21 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 19% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 33% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 10% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,531,131
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#36
of 1,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,171
of 317,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,260 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 317,783 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.