↓ Skip to main content

Unravelling developmental disregard in children with unilateral cerebral palsy by measuring event-related potentials during a simple and complex task

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Unravelling developmental disregard in children with unilateral cerebral palsy by measuring event-related potentials during a simple and complex task
Published in
BMC Neurology, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-14-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingar M Zielinski, Marijtje LA Jongsma, C Marjolein Baas, Pauline BM Aarts, Bert Steenbergen

Abstract

In a subset of children with unilateral Cerebral Palsy (CP) a discrepancy between capacity and performance of the affected upper limb can be observed. This discrepancy is known as Developmental Disregard (DD). Though the phenomenon of DD has been well documented, its underlying cause is still under debate. DD has originally been explained based on principles of operant conditioning. Alternatively, it has been proposed that DD results from a diminished automaticity of movements, resulting in an increased cognitive load when using the affected hand. To investigate the amount of involved cognitive load we studied Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) preceding task-related motor responses during a single-hand capacity and a dual-hand performance task. It was hypothesised that children with DD show alterations related to long-latency ERP components when selecting a response with the affected upper limb, reflecting increased cognitive load in order to generate an adequate response and especially so within the dual-hand task.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Psychology 13 14%
Neuroscience 11 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 11%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 28 29%
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 08 January 2014.
All research outputs
#15,289,831
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,480
of 2,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,399
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#39
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.