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 |
Visuomotor behaviours when using a myoelectric prosthesis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-72 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad MD Sobuh, Laurence PJ Kenney, Adam J Galpin, Sibylle B Thies, Jane McLaughlin, Jai Kulkarni, Peter Kyberd |
| Abstract |
A recent study showed that the gaze patterns of amputee users of myoelectric prostheses differ markedly from those seen in anatomically intact subjects. Gaze behaviour is a promising outcome measures for prosthesis designers, as it appears to reflect the strategies adopted by amputees to compensate for the absence of proprioceptive feedback and uncertainty/delays in the control system, factors believed to be central to the difficulty in using prostheses. The primary aim of our study was to characterise visuomotor behaviours over learning to use a trans-radial myoelectric prosthesis. Secondly, as there are logistical advantages to using anatomically intact subjects in prosthesis evaluation studies, we investigated similarities in visuomotor behaviours between anatomically intact users of a trans-radial prosthesis simulator and experienced trans-radial myoelectric prosthesis users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 27 | 19% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 11% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 59 | 42% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#698
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,790
of 241,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#14
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 241,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.