↓ Skip to main content

Neural Correlates of Unsuccessful Memory Performance in MCI

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Neural Correlates of Unsuccessful Memory Performance in MCI
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2014.00201
Pubmed ID
Authors

N. Chechko, E. I. Drexler, B. Voss, T. Kellermann, A. Finkelmeyer, F. Schneider, U. Habel

Abstract

People with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) are at an elevated risk of developing Alzheimer's disease or other forms of dementia. Although the neural correlates of successful memory performance in MCI have been widely investigated, the neural mechanisms involved in unsuccessful memory performance remain unknown. The current study examines the differences between patients suffering from stable amnestic MCI with multiple deficit syndromes and healthy elderly controls in relation to the neural correlates of both successful and unsuccessful encoding and recognition. Forty-six subjects (27 controls, 19 MCI) from the HelMA (Helmholtz Alliance for Mental Health in an Aging Society) completed a comprehensive neuropsychological test battery and participated in an fMRI experiment for associative face-name memory. In patients, the areas of frontal, parietal, and temporal cortices were less involved during unsuccessful encoding and recognition. A temporary dysfunction of the top-down control of frontal or parietal (or both) areas is likely to result in a non-selective propagation of task-related information to memory.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
China 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 44 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 11 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 38%
Neuroscience 7 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 13%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,376,927
of 22,761,738 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,019
of 4,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,824
of 231,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#67
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,761,738 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,749 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 231,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.