↓ Skip to main content

P300: Waves Identification with and without Subtraction of Traces

Overview of attention for article published in International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
P300: Waves Identification with and without Subtraction of Traces
Published in
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2017
DOI 10.1055/s-0037-1599096
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Romero, Ana Reis, Anna Oliveira, Humberto Oliveira Simões, Cinthia Oliveira Junqueira, Ana Frizzo

Abstract

Introduction  The P300 test requires well-defined and unique criteria, in addition to training for the examiners, for a uniform analysis of studies and to avoid variations and errors in the interpretation of measurement results. Objectives  The objective of this study is to verify whether there are differences in P300 with and without subtraction of traces of standard and nonstandard stimuli. Method  We conducted this study in collaboration with two research electrophysiology laboratories. From Laboratory 1, we selected 40 tests of subjects between 7-44 years, from Laboratory 2, we selected 83 tests of subjects between 18-44 years. We first performed the identification with the nonstandard stimuli; then, we subtracted the nonstandard stimuli from the standard stimuli. The examiners identified the waves, performing a descriptive and comparative analysis of traces with and without subtraction. Results  After a comparative analysis of the traces with and without subtraction, there was no significant difference when compared with analysis of traces in both laboratories, within the conditions, of right ears ( p  = 0.13 and 0.28 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements) and left ears ( p  = 0.15 and 0.09 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements) from Laboratory 1. As for Laboratory 2, when investigating both ears, results did not identify significant differences ( p  = 0.098 and 0.28 for differences between latency and amplitude measurements). Conclusion  There was no difference verified in traces with and without subtraction. We suggest the identification of this potential performed through nonstandard stimuli.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 33%
Student > Master 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 3 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Linguistics 1 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 11%
Psychology 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%

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 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#19,105,601
of 21,468,133 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#254
of 254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,779
of 283,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#12
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,468,133 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 254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.7. 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 283,636 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 18 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.