↓ Skip to main content

The role of the basal ganglia in action imitation: neuropsychological evidence from Parkinson’s disease patients

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, October 2012
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
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
The role of the basal ganglia in action imitation: neuropsychological evidence from Parkinson’s disease patients
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, October 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00221-012-3300-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Bonivento, Raffaella I. Rumiati, Emanuele Biasutti, Glyn W. Humphreys

Abstract

Though previous studies have suggested that the basal ganglia are necessarily involved in action imitation, their precise role is unclear. An important source of evidence concerns patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) who suffer basal ganglia impairments. Some studies report poor execution of observed meaningful (MF) transitive (tool-related) actions but normal performance with intransitive (non-tool-related) MF and meaningless (ML) actions (Leiguarda et al. in Brain 120:75-90, 1997; Leiguarda 2001 in Neuroimage 14:137-141). In other cases, though, patients with lesions involving the basal ganglia appear impaired in imitating ML as compared to meaningful MF transitive pantomimes. Here, we tested a group of PD patients in a full 2 × 2 design with MF transitive and intransitive pantomimes and matched ML movements. PD patients generated higher scores when imitating MF transitive actions than ML-matched actions. On the other hand, ML than MF intransitive actions did not differ significantly. The performance of the patients on imitating ML transitive actions also correlated with their performance on the Corsi block test of visuospatial memory and their scores at the test of verbal fluency for phonemic categories (FAS) while MF intransitive actions correlated with FAS and the neurological evaluation (UPDRS) The results are discussed in terms of the factors that load on visual memory for action reproduction, as well as the possible role of the basal ganglia in communicative actions (for MF intransitive actions).

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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 62 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 15 22%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 26%
Neuroscience 11 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 31%
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 18 May 2013.
All research outputs
#18,324,872
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,416
of 3,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,079
of 185,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#29
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 3,281 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 185,185 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.