↓ Skip to main content

Dynamic Mechanisms of Neocortical Focal Seizure Onset

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Dynamic Mechanisms of Neocortical Focal Seizure Onset
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, August 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003787
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yujiang Wang, Marc Goodfellow, Peter Neal Taylor, Gerold Baier

Abstract

Recent experimental and clinical studies have provided diverse insight into the mechanisms of human focal seizure initiation and propagation. Often these findings exist at different scales of observation, and are not reconciled into a common understanding. Here we develop a new, multiscale mathematical model of cortical electric activity with realistic mesoscopic connectivity. Relating the model dynamics to experimental and clinical findings leads us to propose three classes of dynamical mechanisms for the onset of focal seizures in a unified framework. These three classes are: (i) globally induced focal seizures; (ii) globally supported focal seizures; (iii) locally induced focal seizures. Using model simulations we illustrate these onset mechanisms and show how the three classes can be distinguished. Specifically, we find that although all focal seizures typically appear to arise from localised tissue, the mechanisms of onset could be due to either localised processes or processes on a larger spatial scale. We conclude that although focal seizures might have different patient-specific aetiologies and electrographic signatures, our model suggests that dynamically they can still be classified in a clinically useful way. Additionally, this novel classification according to the dynamical mechanisms is able to resolve some of the previously conflicting experimental and clinical findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 3%
Hong Kong 1 1%
India 1 1%
Unknown 87 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 28%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 9%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 7 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 26 28%
Engineering 15 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 9%
Mathematics 7 8%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 11 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 05 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,219
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,061
of 243,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#119
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 243,822 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.