↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Research and Practice

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 3: Exercise Strategies to Counteract Brain Aging Effects
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
53 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.
Chapter title
Exercise Strategies to Counteract Brain Aging Effects
Chapter number 3
Book title
Clinical Research and Practice
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/5584_2017_3
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-965444-7, 978-3-31-965445-4
Authors

Szalewska, Dominika, Radkowski, Marek, Demkow, Urszula, Winklewski, Pawel J., Dominika Szalewska, Marek Radkowski, Urszula Demkow, Pawel J. Winklewski

Abstract

Stimulating structural and functional adaptation that improves cognitive performance in specific tasks is the major objective of therapeutic exercise training. In this review we briefly summarize central physiological mechanisms activated by exercise. We further discuss the influence of different kinds of exercise on cognitive improvement. In particular, the effects on cognitive function of aerobic endurance, resistance and respiratory exercise, and combinations thereof are presented. The accumulating evidence reinforces the position that regular aerobic, and possibly also resistance training, offers a powerful tool to cope with biologic aging of central nervous system functions. Nevertheless, the potential magnitude of cognition improvement or restrain of age-related cognition deterioration and the quantity of physical activity required to induce meaningful responses remain to be clarified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 11 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 19 36%
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 30 April 2019.
All research outputs
#14,057,029
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#2,014
of 4,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,654
of 309,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#35
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 309,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.