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 |
Retraining function in people with Parkinson’s disease using the Microsoft kinect: game design and pilot testing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-60 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brook Galna, Dan Jackson, Guy Schofield, Roisin McNaney, Mary Webster, Gillian Barry, Dadirayi Mhiripiri, Madeline Balaam, Patrick Olivier, Lynn Rochester |
| Abstract |
Computer based gaming systems, such as the Microsoft Kinect (Kinect), can facilitate complex task practice, enhance sensory feedback and action observation in novel, relevant and motivating modes of exercise which can be difficult to achieve with standard physiotherapy for people with Parkinson's disease (PD). However, there is a current need for safe, feasible and effective exercise games that are appropriate for PD rehabilitation. The aims of this study were to i) develop a computer game to rehabilitate dynamic postural control for people with PD using the Kinect; and ii) pilot test the game's safety and feasibility in a group of people with PD. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 455 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 1% |
| Mexico | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | <1% |
| Unknown | 436 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 89 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 72 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 70 | 15% |
| Researcher | 36 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 20 | 4% |
| Other | 68 | 15% |
| Unknown | 100 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 64 | 14% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 63 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 49 | 11% |
| Engineering | 42 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 28 | 6% |
| Other | 90 | 20% |
| Unknown | 119 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 27 March 2016.
All research outputs
#14,194,875
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#717
of 1,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,319
of 226,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#16
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 226,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.