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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Automated Tracking of Whiskers in Videos of Head Fixed Rodents
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002591 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nathan G. Clack, Daniel H. O'Connor, Daniel Huber, Leopoldo Petreanu, Andrew Hires, Simon Peron, Karel Svoboda, Eugene W. Myers |
| Abstract |
We have developed software for fully automated tracking of vibrissae (whiskers) in high-speed videos (>500 Hz) of head-fixed, behaving rodents trimmed to a single row of whiskers. Performance was assessed against a manually curated dataset consisting of 1.32 million video frames comprising 4.5 million whisker traces. The current implementation detects whiskers with a recall of 99.998% and identifies individual whiskers with 99.997% accuracy. The average processing rate for these images was 8 Mpx/s/cpu (2.6 GHz Intel Core2, 2 GB RAM). This translates to 35 processed frames per second for a 640 px×352 px video of 4 whiskers. The speed and accuracy achieved enables quantitative behavioral studies where the analysis of millions of video frames is required. We used the software to analyze the evolving whisking strategies as mice learned a whisker-based detection task over the course of 6 days (8148 trials, 25 million frames) and measure the forces at the sensory follicle that most underlie haptic perception. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Spain | 2 | 22% |
| Chile | 1 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 3 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 56% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 196 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 32% |
| Researcher | 45 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 11% |
| Professor | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 59 | 28% |
| Engineering | 14 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Unknown | 28 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#6,339,957
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,328
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,603
of 177,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#47
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 177,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 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 57% of its contemporaries.