↓ Skip to main content

The bioelectrical basis and validity of gastrointestinal extracellular slow wave recordings

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physiology, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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.
Article details
Title
The bioelectrical basis and validity of gastrointestinal extracellular slow wave recordings
Published in
Journal of Physiology, June 2013
DOI 10.1113/jphysiol.2013.254292
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

  Gastrointestinal extracellular recordings have been a core technique in motility research for a century. However, the bioelectrical basis of extracellular data has recently been challenged by claims that these techniques preferentially assay movement artifacts, cannot reproduce the underlying slow wave kinetics, and misrepresent the true slow wave frequency. These claims motivated this joint experimental-theoretical study, which aimed to define the sources and validity of extracellular potentials. In vivo extracellular recordings and video capture were performed in the porcine jejunum, before and after intra-arterial nifedipine administration. Gastric extracellular recordings were recorded simultaneously using conventional serosal contact and suction electrodes, and biphasic and monophasic extracellular potentials were simulated in a biophysical model. Contractions were abolished by nifedipine, but extracellular slow waves persisted, with unchanged amplitude, downstroke rate, velocity, and downstroke width (P>0.10 for all), at reduced frequency (24% lower; P=0.03). Simultaneous suction and conventional serosal extracellular recordings were identical in phase (frequency and activation-recovery interval), but varied in morphology (monophasic vs. biphasic; downstroke rate and amplitude: P<0.0001). Simulations demonstrated the field contribution of current flow to extracellular potential and quantified the effects of localised depolarisation due to suction pressure on extracellular potential morphology. In sum, these results demonstrate that gastrointestinal extracellular slow wave recordings cannot be explained by motion artifacts, and are of a bioelectrical origin that is highly consistent with the underlying biophysics of slow wave propagation. Motion suppression is shown to be unnecessary as a routine control in in vivo extracellular studies, supporting the validity of the extant gastrointestinal extracellular literature.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 28%
Researcher 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 22 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 9 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 17 September 2013.
All research outputs
#24,756,754
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physiology
#9,598
of 12,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,623
of 241,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physiology
#43
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 241,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.