↓ Skip to main content

The effect of electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability is dependent on application duration: a same subject pre-post test design

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
The effect of electrical stimulation on corticospinal excitability is dependent on application duration: a same subject pre-post test design
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, June 2013
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-10-51
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca K Andrews, Siobhan M Schabrun, Michael C Ridding, Mary P Galea, Paul W Hodges, Lucinda S Chipchase

Abstract

In humans, corticospinal excitability is known to increase following motor electrical stimulation (ES) designed to mimic a voluntary contraction. However, whether the effect is equivalent with different application durations and whether similar effects are apparent for short and long applications is unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the duration of peripheral motor ES influenced its effect on corticospinal excitability.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 120 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Other 10 8%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 27 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Neuroscience 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Engineering 10 8%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 35 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,689,573
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#935
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,647
of 197,423 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#11
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 197,423 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.