↓ Skip to main content

Estimation and Identifiability of Model Parameters in Human Nociceptive Processing Using Yes-No Detection Responses to Electrocutaneous Stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
Estimation and Identifiability of Model Parameters in Human Nociceptive Processing Using Yes-No Detection Responses to Electrocutaneous Stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huan Yang, Hil G. E. Meijer, Jan R. Buitenweg, Stephan A. van Gils

Abstract

Healthy or pathological states of nociceptive subsystems determine different stimulus-response relations measured from quantitative sensory testing. In turn, stimulus-response measurements may be used to assess these states. In a recently developed computational model, six model parameters characterize activation of nerve endings and spinal neurons. However, both model nonlinearity and limited information in yes-no detection responses to electrocutaneous stimuli challenge to estimate model parameters. Here, we address the question whether and how one can overcome these difficulties for reliable parameter estimation. First, we fit the computational model to experimental stimulus-response pairs by maximizing the likelihood. To evaluate the balance between model fit and complexity, i.e., the number of model parameters, we evaluate the Bayesian Information Criterion. We find that the computational model is better than a conventional logistic model regarding the balance. Second, our theoretical analysis suggests to vary the pulse width among applied stimuli as a necessary condition to prevent structural non-identifiability. In addition, the numerically implemented profile likelihood approach reveals structural and practical non-identifiability. Our model-based approach with integration of psychophysical measurements can be useful for a reliable assessment of states of the nociceptive system.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 19%
Researcher 2 13%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Engineering 3 19%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Mathematics 1 6%
Computer Science 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
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 30 November 2016.
All research outputs
#20,355,479
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,268
of 30,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#350,119
of 415,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#355
of 419 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 415,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 419 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.