| Title |
Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Gait Disorders: Is It Time to Begin?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1177/1545968317693304 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vera Gramigna, Giovanni Pellegrino, Antonio Cerasa, Simone Cutini, Roberta Vasta, Giuseppe Olivadese, Iolanda Martino, Aldo Quattrone |
| Abstract |
Walking is a complex motor behavior with a special relevance in clinical neurology. Many neurological diseases, such as Parkinson's disease and stroke, are characterized by gait disorders whose neurofunctional correlates are poorly investigated. Indeed, the analysis of real walking with the standard neuroimaging techniques poses strong challenges, and only a few studies on motor imagery or walking observation have been performed so far. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) is becoming an important research tool to assess functional activity in neurological populations or for special tasks, such as walking, because it allows investigating brain hemodynamic activity in an ecological setting, without strong immobility constraints. A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on the fNIRS-based examination of gait disorders. Twelve of the initial yield of 489 articles have been included in this review. The lesson learnt from these studies suggest that oxy-hemoglobin levels within the prefrontal and premotor cortices are more sensitive to compensation strategies reflecting postural control and restoration of gait disorders. Although this field of study is in its relative infancy, the evidence provided encourages the translation of fNIRS in clinical practice, as it offers a unique opportunity to explore in depth the activity of the cortical motor system during real walking in neurological patients. We also discuss to what extent fNIRS may be applied for assessing the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 Kingdom | 2 | 25% |
| Australia | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Scientists | 3 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 177 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 15% |
| Unknown | 55 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 27 | 15% |
| Engineering | 22 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 10% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 11% |
| Unknown | 63 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,476,679
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
#439
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,289
of 428,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 428,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 60% of its contemporaries.