| Title |
Cerebellar Activation Related to Saccadic Inaccuracies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Cerebellum, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12311-012-0417-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esmee I. M. L. Liem, Maarten A. Frens, Marion Smits, Jos N. van der Geest |
| Abstract |
Using functional MRI, we assessed activity in the human cerebellum related to the properties of post-saccadic visual errors that drive the plasticity of saccadic eye movements. In the scanner subjects executed blocks of saccadic eye movements toward a target that could be randomly displaced during the saccade. Such an intra-saccadic shift was randomly forward or backward, and could be either small or large. Post-saccadic visual errors induced activation in several cerebellar areas. These areas included, but were not limited to, the oculomotor vermis which is known for its role in saccadic control. Large errors yielded more activation in the cerebellar hemispheres, whereas small errors induced more activation in the vermis. Forward shifts induced more activation than backward shifts. Our results suggest that the differences in cerebellar activation patterns for different sizes and directions of post-saccadic errors could underlie the behavioral differences observed between various saccadic adaptation paradigms. In addition, the outcome argues for an extended range of cerebellar target areas in electrophysiological studies on saccadic eye movement control. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 27% |
| Researcher | 10 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 25% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 20% |
| Psychology | 9 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 October 2012.
All research outputs
#14,262,465
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from The Cerebellum
#342
of 957 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,763
of 174,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Cerebellum
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 957 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
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 174,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.