↓ Skip to main content

Electrophysiological correlates of motor sequence learning

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Electrophysiological correlates of motor sequence learning
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2202-15-102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christelle Beaulieu, Marie-Ève Bourassa, Benoit Brisson, Pierre Jolicoeur, Louis De Beaumont

Abstract

The Error-related negativity (ERN) is a component of the event-related brain potentials elicited by error commission. The ERN is thought to reflect cognitive control processes aiming to improve performance. As previous studies showed a modulation of the ERN amplitude throughout the execution of a learning task, this study aims to follow the ERN amplitude changes from early to late learning blocks in relation with concomitant motor sequence learning using a serial reaction time (SRT) task. Twenty-two healthy participants completed a SRT task during which continuous EEG activity was recorded. The SRT task consists of series of stimulus-response pairs and involves motor learning of a repeating sequence. Learning was computed as the difference in mean response time between the last sequence block and the last random blocks that immediately follows it (sequence-specific learning). Event-related potentials were analysed to measure ERN amplitude elicited by error commission.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Master 13 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 30%
Neuroscience 19 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 19 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 02 November 2014.
All research outputs
#6,184,425
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#252
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,127
of 242,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#6
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 242,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
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 done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.