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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Technologies and combination therapies for enhancing movement training for people with a disability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-9-17 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J Reinkensmeyer, Michael L Boninger |
| Abstract |
There has been a dramatic increase over the last decade in research on technologies for enhancing movement training and exercise for people with a disability. This paper reviews some of the recent developments in this area, using examples from a National Science Foundation initiated study of mobility research projects in Europe to illustrate important themes and key directions for future research. This paper also reviews several recent studies aimed at combining movement training with plasticity or regeneration therapies, again drawing in part from European research examples. Such combination therapies will likely involve complex interactions with motor training that must be understood in order to achieve the goal of eliminating severe motor impairment. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Cuba | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 226 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Researcher | 30 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 51 | 22% |
| Unknown | 40 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 86 | 36% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 16 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 14% |
| Unknown | 54 | 23% |
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 26 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,091
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,996
of 172,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 172,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.