↓ Skip to main content

The autonomic effects of deep brain stimulation—a therapeutic opportunity

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Neurology, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
The autonomic effects of deep brain stimulation—a therapeutic opportunity
Published in
Nature Reviews Neurology, June 2012
DOI 10.1038/nrneurol.2012.100
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A. Hyam, Morten L. Kringelbach, Peter A. Silburn, Tipu Z. Aziz, Alexander L. Green

Abstract

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an expanding field in neurosurgery and has already provided important insights into the fundamental mechanisms underlying brain function. One of the most exciting emerging applications of DBS is modulation of blood pressure, respiration and micturition through its effects on the autonomic nervous system. DBS stimulation at various sites in the central autonomic network produces rapid changes in the functioning of specific organs and physiological systems that are distinct from its therapeutic effects on central nervous motor and sensory systems. For example, DBS modulates several parameters of cardiovascular function, including heart rate, blood pressure, heart rate variability, baroreceptor sensitivity and blood pressure variability. The beneficial effects of DBS also extend to improvements in lung function. This article includes an overview of the anatomy of the central autonomic network, which consists of autonomic nervous system components in the cortex, diencephalon and brainstem that project to the spinal cord or cranial nerves. The effects of DBS on physiological functioning (particularly of the cardiovascular and respiratory systems) are discussed, and the potential for these findings to be translated into therapies for patients with autonomic diseases is examined.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
United States 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 72 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Professor 8 10%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 31%
Neuroscience 13 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Psychology 5 6%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 15 19%
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 20 September 2015.
All research outputs
#18,308,895
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Neurology
#1,823
of 2,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,882
of 167,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Neurology
#26
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 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 2,067 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 167,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.