↓ Skip to main content

Use It and Improve It or Lose It: Interactions between Arm Function and Use in Humans Post-stroke

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, February 2012
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
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
Use It and Improve It or Lose It: Interactions between Arm Function and Use in Humans Post-stroke
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002343
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yukikazu Hidaka, Cheol E. Han, Steven L. Wolf, Carolee J. Winstein, Nicolas Schweighofer

Abstract

"Use it and improve it, or lose it" is one of the axioms of motor therapy after stroke. There is, however, little understanding of the interactions between arm function and use in humans post-stroke. Here, we explored putative non-linear interactions between upper extremity function and use by developing a first-order dynamical model of stroke recovery with longitudinal data from participants receiving constraint induced movement therapy (CIMT) in the EXCITE clinical trial. Using a Bayesian regression framework, we systematically compared this model with competitive models that included, or not, interactions between function and use. Model comparisons showed that the model with the predicted interactions between arm function and use was the best fitting model. Furthermore, by comparing the model parameters before and after CIMT intervention in participants receiving the intervention one year after randomization, we found that therapy increased the parameter that controls the effect of arm function on arm use. Increase in this parameter, which can be thought of as the confidence to use the arm for a given level of function, lead to increase in spontaneous use after therapy compared to before therapy.

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 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 198 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Bachelor 27 13%
Researcher 21 10%
Professor 12 6%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 43 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 17%
Neuroscience 27 13%
Engineering 27 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 52 25%
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 20 February 2012.
All research outputs
#15,875,393
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,787
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,688
of 168,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#67
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 168,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.