↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms and Targets of Deep Brain Stimulation in Movement Disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Neurotherapeutics, April 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
245 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
277 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Mechanisms and Targets of Deep Brain Stimulation in Movement Disorders
Published in
Neurotherapeutics, April 2008
DOI 10.1016/j.nurt.2008.01.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew D. Johnson, Svjetlana Miocinovic, Cameron C. McIntyre, Jerrold L. Vitek

Abstract

Chronic electrical stimulation of the brain, known as deep brain stimulation (DBS), has become a preferred surgical treatment for medication-refractory movement disorders. Despite its remarkable clinical success, the therapeutic mechanisms of DBS are still not completely understood, limiting opportunities to improve treatment efficacy and simplify selection of stimulation parameters. This review addresses three questions essential to understanding the mechanisms of DBS. 1) How does DBS affect neuronal tissue in the vicinity of the active electrode or electrodes? 2) How do these changes translate into therapeutic benefit on motor symptoms? 3) How do these effects depend on the particular site of stimulation? Early hypotheses proposed that stimulation inhibited neuronal activity at the site of stimulation, mimicking the outcome of ablative surgeries. Recent studies have challenged that view, suggesting that although somatic activity near the DBS electrode may exhibit substantial inhibition or complex modulation patterns, the output from the stimulated nucleus follows the DBS pulse train by direct axonal excitation. The intrinsic activity is thus replaced by high-frequency activity that is time-locked to the stimulus and more regular in pattern. These changes in firing pattern are thought to prevent transmission of pathologic bursting and oscillatory activity, resulting in the reduction of disease symptoms through compensatory processing of sensorimotor information. Although promising, this theory does not entirely explain why DBS improves motor symptoms at different latencies. Understanding these processes on a physiological level will be critically important if we are to reach the full potential of this powerful tool.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 277 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 3%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 260 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 20%
Researcher 51 18%
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Professor 17 6%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 41 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 21%
Neuroscience 53 19%
Engineering 47 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 13%
Computer Science 9 3%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 47 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 October 2009.
All research outputs
#3,798,611
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#422
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,710
of 95,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 95,970 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.