↓ Skip to main content

Interpreting Intervention Induced Neuroplasticity with fMRI: The Case for Multimodal Imaging Strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Neural Plasticity, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interpreting Intervention Induced Neuroplasticity with fMRI: The Case for Multimodal Imaging Strategies
Published in
Neural Plasticity, December 2015
DOI 10.1155/2016/2643491
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee B. Reid, Roslyn N. Boyd, Ross Cunnington, Stephen E. Rose

Abstract

Direct measurement of recovery from brain injury is an important goal in neurorehabilitation, and requires reliable, objective, and interpretable measures of changes in brain function, referred to generally as "neuroplasticity." One popular imaging modality for measuring neuroplasticity is task-based functional magnetic resonance imaging (t-fMRI). In the field of neurorehabilitation, however, assessing neuroplasticity using t-fMRI presents a significant challenge. This commentary reviews t-fMRI changes commonly reported in patients with cerebral palsy or acquired brain injuries, with a focus on studies of motor rehabilitation, and discusses complexities surrounding their interpretations. Specifically, we discuss the difficulties in interpreting t-fMRI changes in terms of their underlying causes, that is, differentiating whether they reflect genuine reorganisation, neurological restoration, compensation, use of preexisting redundancies, changes in strategy, or maladaptive processes. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of heterogeneous disease states and essential t-fMRI processing steps on the interpretability of activation patterns. To better understand therapy-induced neuroplastic changes, we suggest that researchers utilising t-fMRI consider concurrently acquiring information from an additional modality, to quantify, for example, haemodynamic differences or microstructural changes. We outline a variety of such supplementary measures for investigating brain reorganisation and discuss situations in which they may prove beneficial to the interpretation of t-fMRI data.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 129 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Master 15 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 18%
Neuroscience 17 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Computer Science 6 5%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 39 30%
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 13 March 2017.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neural Plasticity
#706
of 1,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#278,414
of 399,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neural Plasticity
#77
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 399,590 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 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.