| Title |
Poor motor function is associated with reduced sensory processing after stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-015-4206-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Floor Campfens, Sarah B. Zandvliet, Carel G. M. Meskers, Alfred C. Schouten, Michel J. A. M. van Putten, Herman van der Kooij |
| Abstract |
The possibility to regain motor function after stroke depends on the intactness of motor and sensory pathways. In this study, we evaluated afferent sensory pathway information transfer and processing after stroke with the coherence between cortical activity and a position perturbation (position-cortical coherence, PCC). Eleven subacute stroke survivors participated in this study. Subjects performed a motor task with the affected and non-affected arm while continuous wrist position perturbations were applied. Cortical activity was measured using EEG. PCC was calculated between position perturbation and EEG at the contralateral and ipsilateral sensorimotor area. The presence of PCC was quantified as the number of frequencies where PCC is larger than zero across the sensorimotor area. All subjects showed significant contralateral PCC in affected and non-affected wrist tasks. Subjects with poor motor function had a reduced presence of contralateral PCC compared with subjects with good motor function in the affected wrist tasks. Amplitude of significant PCC did not differ between subjects with good and poor motor function. Our results show that poor motor function is associated with reduced sensory pathway information transfer and processing in subacute stroke subjects. Position-cortical coherence may provide additional insight into mechanisms of recovery of motor function after stroke. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 19% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 25% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 19 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
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 05 February 2015.
All research outputs
#22,064,248
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#3,065
of 3,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,069
of 362,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#33
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,369 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 362,017 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.