↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of human cerebellar dysmetria: experimental evidence and current conceptual bases

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Mechanisms of human cerebellar dysmetria: experimental evidence and current conceptual bases
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2009
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-6-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mario Manto

Abstract

The human cerebellum contains more neurons than any other region in the brain and is a major actor in motor control. Cerebellar circuitry is unique by its stereotyped architecture and its modular organization. Understanding the motor codes underlying the organization of limb movement and the rules of signal processing applied by the cerebellar circuits remains a major challenge for the forthcoming decades. One of the cardinal deficits observed in cerebellar patients is dysmetria, designating the inability to perform accurate movements. Patients overshoot (hypermetria) or undershoot (hypometria) the aimed target during voluntary goal-directed tasks. The mechanisms of cerebellar dysmetria are reviewed, with an emphasis on the roles of cerebellar pathways in controlling fundamental aspects of movement control such as anticipation, timing of motor commands, sensorimotor synchronization, maintenance of sensorimotor associations and tuning of the magnitudes of muscle activities. An overview of recent advances in our understanding of the contribution of cerebellar circuitry in the elaboration and shaping of motor commands is provided, with a discussion on the relevant anatomy, the results of the neurophysiological studies, and the computational models which have been proposed to approach cerebellar function.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 142 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Master 14 9%
Other 13 9%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 30%
Neuroscience 27 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 10%
Engineering 9 6%
Psychology 8 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 28 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 February 2021.
All research outputs
#7,185,533
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#458
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,091
of 93,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,278 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 63% 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 93,513 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them