↓ Skip to main content

A Hitchhiker's Guide to Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
32 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
24 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
1057 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
A Hitchhiker's Guide to Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00515
Pubmed ID
Authors

José M. Soares, Ricardo Magalhães, Pedro S. Moreira, Alexandre Sousa, Edward Ganz, Adriana Sampaio, Victor Alves, Paulo Marques, Nuno Sousa

Abstract

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies have become increasingly popular both with clinicians and researchers as they are capable of providing unique insights into brain functions. However, multiple technical considerations (ranging from specifics of paradigm design to imaging artifacts, complex protocol definition, and multitude of processing and methods of analysis, as well as intrinsic methodological limitations) must be considered and addressed in order to optimize fMRI analysis and to arrive at the most accurate and grounded interpretation of the data. In practice, the researcher/clinician must choose, from many available options, the most suitable software tool for each stage of the fMRI analysis pipeline. Herein we provide a straightforward guide designed to address, for each of the major stages, the techniques, and tools involved in the process. We have developed this guide both to help those new to the technique to overcome the most critical difficulties in its use, as well as to serve as a resource for the neuroimaging community.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,057 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1047 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 217 21%
Student > Master 166 16%
Researcher 129 12%
Student > Bachelor 102 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 55 5%
Other 148 14%
Unknown 240 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 265 25%
Psychology 174 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 82 8%
Engineering 66 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 4%
Other 128 12%
Unknown 301 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 259. 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 09 December 2022.
All research outputs
#140,929
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#58
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,840
of 318,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 318,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.