↓ Skip to main content

Different strategies do not moderate primary motor cortex involvement in mental rotation: a TMS study

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, August 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Different strategies do not moderate primary motor cortex involvement in mental rotation: a TMS study
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, August 2007
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-3-38
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Bode, Susan Koeneke, Lutz Jäncke

Abstract

Regions of the dorsal visual stream are known to play an essential role during the process of mental rotation. The functional role of the primary motor cortex (M1) in mental rotation is however less clear. It has been suggested that the strategy used to mentally rotate objects determines M1 involvement. Based on the strategy hypothesis that distinguishes between an internal and an external strategy, our study was designed to specifically test the relation between strategy and M1 activity. Twenty-two subjects were asked to participate in a standard mental rotation task. We used specific picture stimuli that were supposed to trigger either the internal (e.g. pictures of hands or tools) or the external strategy (e.g. pictures of houses or abstract figures). The strategy hypothesis predicts an involvement of M1 only in case of stimuli triggering the internal strategy (imagine grasping and rotating the object by oneself). Single-pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) was employed to quantify M1 activity during task performance by measuring Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) at the right hand muscle. Contrary to the strategy hypothesis, we found no interaction between stimulus category and corticospinal excitability. Instead, corticospinal excitability was generally increased compared with a resting baseline although subjects indicated more frequent use of the external strategy for all object categories. This finding suggests that M1 involvement is not exclusively linked with the use of the internal strategy but rather directly with the process of mental rotation. Alternatively, our results might support the hypothesis that M1 is active due to a 'spill-over' effect from adjacent brain regions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 2 1%
Unknown 174 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 22%
Unspecified 12 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Postgraduate 10 6%
Other 21 12%
Unknown 73 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 49 28%
Unspecified 12 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Arts and Humanities 7 4%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 80 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#15,374,585
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#246
of 391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,875
of 67,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 67,318 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.