↓ Skip to main content

Modulation of locus coeruleus activity by novel oddball stimuli

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Imaging and Behavior, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
Title
Modulation of locus coeruleus activity by novel oddball stimuli
Published in
Brain Imaging and Behavior, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11682-017-9700-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruth M. Krebs, Haeme R. P. Park, Klaas Bombeke, Carsten N. Boehler

Abstract

It has long been known from animal literature that the locus coeruleus (LC), the source region of noradrenergic neurons in the brain, is sensitive to unexpected, novel, and other salient events. In humans, however, direct assessment of LC activity has proven to be challenging due to its small size and difficult localization, which is why noradrenergic activity has often been assessed using more indirect measures such as electroencephalography (EEG) and pupil recordings. Here, we combined high-resolution functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) with a special anatomical sequence to assess neural activity in the LC in response to different types of salient stimuli in an oddball paradigm (novel neutral oddballs, novel emotional oddballs, and familiar target oddballs). We found a significant linear increase of LC activity from standard trials, over familiar target oddballs, to novel neutral and novel emotional oddballs. Importantly, when breaking down this linear trend, only novel oddball stimuli led to robust activity increases as compared to standard trials, with no statistical difference between neutral and emotional ones. This pattern suggests that activity modulations in the LC in the present study were mainly driven by stimulus novelty, rather than by emotional saliency, task relevance, or contextual novelty alone. Moreover, the absence of significant activity modulations in response to target oddballs (which were reported in a recent study) suggests that the LC represents relative rather than absolute saliency of a stimulus in its respective context.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 23%
Student > Master 13 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 27 28%
Psychology 19 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 36 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 August 2017.
All research outputs
#13,308,699
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#474
of 1,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,438
of 307,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Imaging and Behavior
#10
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,155 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 307,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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 72% of its contemporaries.