↓ Skip to main content

Membrane Stress Proclivities in the Mammalian Labyrinth

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Membrane Stress Proclivities in the Mammalian Labyrinth
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, August 2014
DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1385846
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Pender

Abstract

Introduction The membranes of the inferior division of the labyrinth in some mammals appear more vulnerable to hydropic distention than those of the superior division. This finding in guinea pigs, cats, and humans has been attributed to the evidently thinner membranes with implied higher stress levels. Objective The objective of this study is to identify other configurational features, if any, that may contribute to membrane stress proclivity and therefore might act to augment or ameliorate stress in the several chambers of the membranous labyrinth. Methods Stress proclivity can be investigated using shell theory to analyze a geometric model of the labyrinthine membranes in mammals. Such an approach can provide the necessary mathematical descriptions of stress in each chamber of the labyrinth. Results Stress proclivity depends on three physical features: membrane thickness, radial size, and chamber shape. Lower stress proclivities are projected for smaller chambers with thick, highly synclastic membranes. Higher stress levels are projected for larger chambers with thin, flat, or anticlastic membranes. Conclusions In the mammalian labyrinth, pars superior chambers exhibit permutations of membrane thickness, size, and favorable shapes that reduce stress proclivity. In contrast, the pars inferior chambers are characterized by thin membranes with flat contours and adverse shapes that make them especially vulnerable to hydropic distention.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 33%
Librarian 1 17%
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 33%
Linguistics 1 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 17%
Unknown 1 17%
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 06 April 2015.
All research outputs
#20,268,102
of 22,799,071 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#305
of 645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,842
of 235,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#6
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,799,071 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 645 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.6. 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 235,947 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 17 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.