↓ Skip to main content

How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2017
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
266 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
How a diverse research ecosystem has generated new rehabilitation technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
Published in
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12984-017-0321-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

David J. Reinkensmeyer, Sarah Blackstone, Cathy Bodine, John Brabyn, David Brienza, Kevin Caves, Frank DeRuyter, Edmund Durfee, Stefania Fatone, Geoff Fernie, Steven Gard, Patricia Karg, Todd A. Kuiken, Gerald F. Harris, Mike Jones, Yue Li, Jordana Maisel, Michael McCue, Michelle A. Meade, Helena Mitchell, Tracy L. Mitzner, James L. Patton, Philip S. Requejo, James H. Rimmer, Wendy A. Rogers, W. Zev Rymer, Jon A. Sanford, Lawrence Schneider, Levin Sliker, Stephen Sprigle, Aaron Steinfeld, Edward Steinfeld, Gregg Vanderheiden, Carolee Winstein, Li-Qun Zhang, Thomas Corfman

Abstract

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a "total approach to rehabilitation", combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970's, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 266 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Bachelor 35 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 9%
Professor 16 6%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 69 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 38 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 11%
Computer Science 22 8%
Psychology 17 6%
Other 49 18%
Unknown 80 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,288,572
of 18,934,527 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#203
of 1,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,143
of 333,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#23
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,934,527 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 333,781 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 85 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 74% of its contemporaries.