↓ Skip to main content

Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Science, March 2009
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 (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters
patent
14 patents
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
pinterest
1 Pinner
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
399 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Spinal Cord Stimulation Restores Locomotion in Animal Models of Parkinson's Disease
Published in
Science, March 2009
DOI 10.1126/science.1164901
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Fuentes, P. Petersson, W. B. Siesser, M. G. Caron, M. A. L. Nicolelis

Abstract

Dopamine replacement therapy is useful for treating motor symptoms in the early phase of Parkinson's disease, but it is less effective in the long term. Electrical deep-brain stimulation is a valuable complement to pharmacological treatment but involves a highly invasive surgical procedure. We found that epidural electrical stimulation of the dorsal columns in the spinal cord restores locomotion in both acute pharmacologically induced dopamine-depleted mice and in chronic 6-hydroxydopamine-lesioned rats. The functional recovery was paralleled by a disruption of aberrant low-frequency synchronous corticostriatal oscillations, leading to the emergence of neuronal activity patterns that resemble the state normally preceding spontaneous initiation of locomotion. We propose that dorsal column stimulation might become an efficient and less invasive alternative for treatment of Parkinson's disease in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 399 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 19 5%
Germany 4 1%
Switzerland 4 1%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Brazil 4 1%
Japan 3 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 350 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 93 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 78 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 49 12%
Student > Master 40 10%
Professor 33 8%
Other 75 19%
Unknown 31 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 99 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 80 20%
Neuroscience 68 17%
Engineering 58 15%
Psychology 12 3%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 48 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 10 December 2019.
All research outputs
#531,793
of 15,184,505 outputs
Outputs from Science
#13,275
of 65,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,187
of 73,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#136
of 668 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,184,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 65,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 49.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 73,484 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 668 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.