↓ Skip to main content

Improvements in hand function after intensive bimanual training are not associated with corticospinal tract dysgenesis in children with unilateral cerebral palsy

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Improvements in hand function after intensive bimanual training are not associated with corticospinal tract dysgenesis in children with unilateral cerebral palsy
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, March 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00221-014-3889-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathleen M. Friel, Hsing-Ching Kuo, Jason B. Carmel, Stefan B. Rowny, Andrew M. Gordon

Abstract

Unilateral cerebral palsy (CP) results from damage to the developing brain that occurs within the first 2 years of life. Previous studies found associations between asymmetry in the size of the corticospinal tract (CST) from the two hemispheres and severity of hand impairments in children with unilateral CP. The extent to which CST damage affects the capacity for hand function improvement is unknown. This study examines the association between an estimate of CST dysgenesis and (1) hand function and (2) the efficacy of intensive bimanual training in improving hand function. Children with unilateral CP, age 3.6-14.9 years, n = 35, received intensive bimanual training. Children engaged in bimanual functional/play activities (6 h/day, 15 days). Peduncle asymmetry, an estimate of CST dysgenesis, was measured on T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans. Hand function was measured pre- and post-treatment using the assisting hand assessment (AHA) and Jebsen-Taylor test of hand function (JTTHF). AHA and JTTHF improved post-treatment (p < 0.001). Peduncle asymmetry was correlated with baseline AHA and JTTHF (p < 0.001) but not with AHA or JTTHF improvement post-training (R (2) < 0.1, p > 0.2). An estimate of CST dysgenesis is correlated with baseline hand function but is a poor predictor of training efficacy, possibly indicating a flexibility of developing motor systems to mediate recovery.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 17 16%
Neuroscience 13 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Psychology 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 37 35%
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 17 March 2014.
All research outputs
#18,369,403
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#2,475
of 3,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,967
of 221,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#46
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,220 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 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 221,240 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.