↓ Skip to main content

Risky monetary behavior in chronic back pain is associated with altered modular connectivity of the nucleus accumbens

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Risky monetary behavior in chronic back pain is associated with altered modular connectivity of the nucleus accumbens
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-739
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara E Berger, Alexis T Baria, Marwan N Baliki, Ali Mansour, Kristi M Herrmann, Souraya Torbey, Lejian Huang, Elle L Parks, Thomas J Schnizter, A Vania Apkarian

Abstract

The nucleus accumbens (NAc) has a well established role in reward processing. Yet, there is growing evidence showing that NAc function, and its connections to other parts of the brain, is also critically involved in the emergence of chronic back pain (CBP). Pain patients are known to perform abnormally in reward-related tasks, which suggests an intriguing link between pain, NAc connectivity, and reward behavior. In the present study, we compared performance on a gambling task (indicating willingness to risk losing money) between healthy pain-free controls (CON) and individuals with CBP. We then measured modular connectivity of each participants' NAc with resting state functional MRI to investigate how connectivity accounts for reward behavior in the presence and absence of pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 20%
Researcher 19 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Student > Master 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 25 24%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 20%
Psychology 18 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 December 2014.
All research outputs
#7,136,697
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,143
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,856
of 259,226 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#24
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 259,226 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.