↓ Skip to main content

Evoked potentials in the Atlantic cod following putatively innocuous and putatively noxious electrical stimulation: a minimally invasive approach

Overview of attention for article published in Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#3 of 873)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Evoked potentials in the Atlantic cod following putatively innocuous and putatively noxious electrical stimulation: a minimally invasive approach
Published in
Fish Physiology and Biochemistry, July 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10695-013-9834-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stian Ludvigsen, Niels C. Stenklev, Helge K. Johnsen, Einar Laukli, Dagfinn Matre, Øyvind Aas-Hansen

Abstract

Aspects of peripheral and central nociception have previously been studied through recording of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) to putative noxious stimuli in specific brain regions in a few freshwater fish species. In the present study, we describe a novel, minimally invasive method for recording SEPs from the central nervous system of the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Cutaneous electric stimulation of the tail in 15 fish elicited SEPs at all stimulus intensities (2, 5, 10 and 20 mA) with quantitative properties corresponding to stimulus intensity. In contrast to previous fish studies, the methodological approach used in Atlantic cod in the current study uncovered a number of additional responses that could originate from multiple brain regions. Several of these responses were specific to stimulation at the highest stimulus intensities, possibly representing qualitative differences in central processing between somatosensory and nociceptive stimuli.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 22%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 30%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 29 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,104,059
of 23,342,232 outputs
Outputs from Fish Physiology and Biochemistry
#3
of 873 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,894
of 199,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fish Physiology and Biochemistry
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 873 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 199,802 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them