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 |
Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cerebellum & Ataxias, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40673-016-0057-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sara Tremblay, Duncan Austin, Ricci Hannah, John C. Rothwell |
| Abstract |
The recent development of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has allowed the non-invasive assessment of cerebellar function in humans. Early studies showed that cerebellar activity, as reflected in the excitability of the dentate-thalamo-cortical pathway, can be assessed with paired stimulation of the cerebellum and the primary motor cortex (M1) (cerebellar inhibition of motor cortex, CBI). Following this, many attempts have been made, using techniques such as repetitive TMS and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), to modulate the activity of the cerebellum and the dentate-thalamo-cortical output, and measure their impact on M1 activity. The present article reviews literature concerned with the impact of non-invasive stimulation of cerebellum on M1 measures of excitability and "plasticity" in both healthy and clinical populations. The main conclusion from the 27 reviewed articles is that the effects of cerebellar "plasticity" protocols on M1 activity are generally inconsistent. Nevertheless, two measurements showed relatively reproducible effects in healthy individuals: reduced response of M1 to sensorimotor "plasticity" (paired-associative stimulation, PAS) and reduced CBI following repetitive TMS and TES. We discuss current challenges, such as the low power of reviewed studies, variability in stimulation parameters employed and lack of understanding of physiological mechanisms underlying CBI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 21% |
| Researcher | 19 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 25 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 32 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 14% |
| Psychology | 8 | 7% |
| Engineering | 5 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 35 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 February 2017.
All research outputs
#6,814,578
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from Cerebellum & Ataxias
#20
of 103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,184
of 270,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cerebellum & Ataxias
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 270,398 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.