| Title |
Increased frontal brain activation during walking while dual tasking: an fNIRS study in healthy young adults
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-85 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anat Mirelman, Inbal Maidan, Hagar Bernad-Elazari, Freek Nieuwhof, Miriam Reelick, Nir Giladi, Jeffrey M Hausdorff |
| Abstract |
Accumulating evidence suggests that gait is influenced by higher order cognitive and cortical control mechanisms. Recently, several studies used functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to examine brain activity during walking, demonstrating increased oxygenated hemoglobin (HbO2) levels in the frontal cortex during walking while subjects completed a verbal cognitive task. It is, however, still unclear whether this increase in activation was related to verbalization, if the response was specific to gait, or if it would also be observed during standing, a different motor control task. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an increase in frontal activation is specific to dual tasking during walking. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 334 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 326 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 74 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 60 | 18% |
| Researcher | 36 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 8% |
| Other | 44 | 13% |
| Unknown | 62 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 48 | 14% |
| Engineering | 43 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 12% |
| Psychology | 38 | 11% |
| Sports and Recreations | 32 | 10% |
| Other | 44 | 13% |
| Unknown | 90 | 27% |
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 26 June 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,091
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,948
of 241,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#28
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 241,837 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.