↓ Skip to main content

Electronic bypass of spinal lesions: activation of lower motor neurons directly driven by cortical neural signals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Electronic bypass of spinal lesions: activation of lower motor neurons directly driven by cortical neural signals
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1743-0003-11-107
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Li, Monzurul Alam, Shanshan Guo, KH Ting, Jufang He

Abstract

Lower motor neurons in the spinal cord lose supraspinal inputs after complete spinal cord injury, leading to a loss of volitional control below the injury site. Extensive locomotor training with spinal cord stimulation can restore locomotion function after spinal cord injury in humans and animals. However, this locomotion is non-voluntary, meaning that subjects cannot control stimulation via their natural "intent". A recent study demonstrated an advanced system that triggers a stimulator using forelimb stepping electromyographic patterns to restore quadrupedal walking in rats with spinal cord transection. However, this indirect source of "intent" may mean that other non-stepping forelimb activities may false-trigger the spinal stimulator and thus produce unwanted hindlimb movements.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 25%
Student > Master 14 21%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 10 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 19 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 10%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 22%

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 05 November 2014.
All research outputs
#13,314,894
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#676
of 1,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,435
of 202,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 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 1,228 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 202,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.