↓ Skip to main content

A cortical–spinal prosthesis for targeted limb movement in paralysed primate avatars

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, February 2014
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
21 news outlets
blogs
6 blogs
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
Title
A cortical–spinal prosthesis for targeted limb movement in paralysed primate avatars
Published in
Nature Communications, February 2014
DOI 10.1038/ncomms4237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maryam M. Shanechi, Rollin C. Hu, Ziv M. Williams

Abstract

Motor paralysis is among the most disabling aspects of injury to the central nervous system. Here we develop and test a target-based cortical-spinal neural prosthesis that employs neural activity recorded from premotor neurons to control limb movements in functionally paralysed primate avatars. Given the complexity by which muscle contractions are naturally controlled, we approach the problem of eliciting goal-directed limb movement in paralysed animals by focusing on the intended targets of movement rather than their intermediate trajectories. We then match this information in real-time with spinal cord and muscle stimulation parameters that produce free planar limb movements to those intended target locations. We demonstrate that both the decoded activities of premotor populations and their adaptive responses can be used, after brief training, to effectively direct an avatar's limb to distinct targets variably displayed on a screen. These findings advance the future possibility of reconstituting targeted limb movement in paralysed subjects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Germany 2 1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 145 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 38%
Researcher 32 21%
Student > Master 14 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 6 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 40 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 21%
Neuroscience 21 13%
Psychology 17 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 10%
Other 20 13%
Unknown 11 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 253. 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 22 September 2015.
All research outputs
#48,036
of 13,387,082 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#709
of 23,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#753
of 187,124 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#2
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,387,082 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 23,792 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 187,124 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 347 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.