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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Current Status of Neurofeedback for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Psychiatry Reports, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11920-012-0301-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas Lofthouse, L. Eugene Arnold, Elizabeth Hurt |
| Abstract |
As conventional treatments offer incomplete benefit for over 33 % of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and many refuse to try them, additional treatments are needed. One of the most promising is neurofeedback (NF, EEG biofeedback), which trains the brain with real-time video/audio information about its electrical activity measured from scalp electrodes. Since 2010, data from 8 randomized controlled studies of NF have been published with overall mean effect sizes of: 0.40 (all measures), 0.42 (ADHD measures), 0.56 (inattention), and 0.54 (hyperactivity/ impulsivity). Unfortunately, the benefit reported from randomized studies has not been observed in the few small blinded studies conducted. Main study strengths include randomization, evidence-based diagnostic assessments, multi-domain treatment outcomes, use of some type of blinding, and sham control conditions. Main study limitations include lack of large samples, abnormal EEG participant selection, double-blinding, and testing of blind validity and sham inertness. Most recently, a collaborative NF research group has been planning a definitive double-blind well-controlled trial. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 104 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 21% |
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 17 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 34 | 31% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Engineering | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,773,679
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Current Psychiatry Reports
#381
of 1,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,395
of 167,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Psychiatry Reports
#12
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 167,832 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.