↓ Skip to main content

Visual prostheses for the blind

Overview of attention for article published in Trends in Biotechnology, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 499)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Visual prostheses for the blind
Published in
Trends in Biotechnology, August 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.07.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shepherd RK, Shivdasani MN, Nayagam DA, Williams CE, Blamey PJ, Robert K. Shepherd, Mohit N. Shivdasani, David A.X. Nayagam, Christopher E. Williams, Peter J. Blamey

Abstract

After more than 40 years of research, visual prostheses are moving from the laboratory into the clinic. These devices are designed to provide prosthetic vision to the blind by stimulating localized neural populations in one of the retinotopically organized structures of the visual pathway - typically the retina or visual cortex. The long gestation of this research reflects the many significant technical challenges encountered including surgical access, mechanical stability, hardware miniaturization, hermetic encapsulation, high-density electrode arrays, and signal processing. This review provides an introduction to the pathophysiology of blindness; an overview of existing visual prostheses, their advantages and drawbacks; the perceptual effects evoked by electrical stimulation; as well as the role played by plasticity and training in clinical outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
France 2 1%
Russian Federation 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 122 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 23%
Researcher 30 22%
Student > Bachelor 25 19%
Student > Master 19 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 5%
Other 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 44 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 19%
Neuroscience 15 11%
Materials Science 10 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Other 33 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 December 2013.
All research outputs
#262,119
of 3,622,268 outputs
Outputs from Trends in Biotechnology
#32
of 499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,342
of 87,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trends in Biotechnology
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,622,268 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 87,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 92% of its contemporaries.