↓ Skip to main content

Asymmetric Walkway: A Novel Behavioral Assay for Studying Asymmetric Locomotion

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Visualized Experiments, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 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
Asymmetric Walkway: A Novel Behavioral Assay for Studying Asymmetric Locomotion
Published in
Journal of Visualized Experiments, January 2016
DOI 10.3791/52921
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kiril Tuntevski, Ryan Ellison, Sergiy Yakovenko

Abstract

Behavioral assays are commonly used for the assessment of sensorimotor impairment in the central nervous system (CNS). The most sophisticated methods for quantifying locomotor deficits in rodents is to measure minute disturbances of unconstrained gait overground (e.g., manual BBB score or automated CatWalk). However, cortical inputs are not required for the generation of basic locomotion produced by the spinal central pattern generator (CPG). Thus, unconstrained walking tasks test locomotor deficits due to motor cortical impairment only indirectly. In this study, we propose a novel, precise foot-placement locomotor task that evaluates cortical inputs to the spinal CPG. An instrumented peg-way was used to impose symmetrical and asymmetrical locomotor tasks mimicking lateralized movement deficits. We demonstrate that shifts from equidistant inter-stride lengths of 20% produce changes in the forelimb stance phase characteristics during locomotion with preferred stride length. Furthermore, we propose that the asymmetric walkway allows for measurements of behavioral outcomes produced by cortical control signals. These measures are relevant for the assessment of impairment after cortical damage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 14%
Unknown 12 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 29%
Researcher 3 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Professor 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 4 29%
Neuroscience 3 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 21%
Engineering 2 14%
Psychology 1 7%
Other 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,622,985
of 7,182,236 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#1,778
of 3,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,575
of 320,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Visualized Experiments
#48
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,182,236 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,890 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 320,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 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.