↓ Skip to main content

Disentangling Somatosensory Evoked Potentials of the Fingers: Limitations and Clinical Potential

Overview of attention for article published in Brain Topography, January 2018
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
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Disentangling Somatosensory Evoked Potentials of the Fingers: Limitations and Clinical Potential
Published in
Brain Topography, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10548-017-0617-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konstantina Kalogianni, Andreas Daffertshofer, Frans C. T. van der Helm, Alfred C. Schouten, Jan C. de Munck, on behalf of the 4DEEG consortium

Abstract

In searching for clinical biomarkers of the somatosensory function, we studied reproducibility of somatosensory potentials (SEP) evoked by finger stimulation in healthy subjects. SEPs induced by electrical stimulation and especially after median nerve stimulation is a method widely used in the literature. It is unclear, however, if the EEG recordings after finger stimulation are reproducible within the same subject. We tested in five healthy subjects the consistency and reproducibility of responses through bootstrapping as well as test-retest recordings. We further evaluated the possibility to discriminate activity of different fingers both at electrode and at source level. The lack of consistency and reproducibility suggest responses to finger stimulation to be unreliable, even with reasonably high signal-to-noise ratio and adequate number of trials. At sources level, somatotopic arrangement of the fingers representation was only found in one of the subjects. Although finding distinct locations of the different fingers activation was possible, our protocol did not allow for non-overlapping dipole representations of the fingers. We conclude that despite its theoretical advantages, we cannot recommend the use of somatosensory potentials evoked by finger stimulation to extract clinical biomarkers.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 23%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Engineering 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 17 32%
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 22 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,690,772
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Brain Topography
#305
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,875
of 442,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brain Topography
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 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 488 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 442,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.