↓ Skip to main content

Considering the influence of stimulation parameters on the effect of conventional and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Review of Medical Devices, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Considering the influence of stimulation parameters on the effect of conventional and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation
Published in
Expert Review of Medical Devices, March 2016
DOI 10.1586/17434440.2016.1153968
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Recently, techniques to non-invasively modulate specific brain areas gained popularity in the form of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation. These non-invasive techniques have already shown promising outcomes in various studies with healthy subjects as well as patient populations. Despite widespread dissemination of tDCS, there remain significant unknowns about the influence of a diverse number of tDCS parameters (e.g. polarity, size, position of electrodes & duration of stimulation) in inducing neurophysiological and behavioral effects. This article explores both techniques starting with the history of tDCS, to the differences between conventional tDCS and high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation, the underlying physiological mechanism, the (in)direct effects, the applications of tDCS with varying parameters, the efficacy, the safety issues and the opportunities for future research.

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 96 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 %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 95 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 26 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 21 22%
Psychology 18 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 32 33%
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 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#25,678,809
of 31,849,655 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#691
of 912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,320
of 325,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Medical Devices
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,849,655 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 912 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 325,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.