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 |
Social robots in advanced dementia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnagi.2015.00133 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meritxell Valentí Soler, Luis Agüera-Ortiz, Javier Olazarán Rodríguez, Carolina Mendoza Rebolledo, Almudena Pérez Muñoz, Irene Rodríguez Pérez, Emma Osa Ruiz, Ana Barrios Sánchez, Vanesa Herrero Cano, Laura Carrasco Chillón, Silvia Felipe Ruiz, Jorge López Alvarez, Beatriz León Salas, José M. Cañas Plaza, Francisco Martín Rico, Gonzalo Abella Dago, Pablo Martínez Martín |
| Abstract |
Pilot studies applying a humanoid robot (NAO), a pet robot (PARO) and a real animal (DOG) in therapy sessions of patients with dementia in a nursing home and a day care center. In the nursing home, patients were assigned by living units, based on dementia severity, to one of the three parallel therapeutic arms to compare: CONTROL, PARO and NAO (Phase 1) and CONTROL, PARO, and DOG (Phase 2). In the day care center, all patients received therapy with NAO (Phase 1) and PARO (Phase 2). Therapy sessions were held 2 days per week during 3 months. Evaluation, at baseline and follow-up, was carried out by blind raters using: the Global Deterioration Scale (GDS), the Severe Mini Mental State Examination (sMMSE), the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), the Apathy Scale for Institutionalized Patients with Dementia Nursing Home version (APADEM-NH), the Apathy Inventory (AI) and the Quality of Life Scale (QUALID). Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests performed by a blinded investigator. In the nursing home, 101 patients (Phase 1) and 110 patients (Phase 2) were included. There were no significant differences at baseline. The relevant changes at follow-up were: (Phase 1) patients in the robot groups showed an improvement in apathy; patients in NAO group showed a decline in cognition as measured by the MMSE scores, but not the sMMSE; the robot groups showed no significant changes between them; (Phase 2) QUALID scores increased in the PARO group. In the day care center, 20 patients (Phase 1) and 17 patients (Phase 2) were included. The main findings were: (Phase 1) improvement in the NPI irritability and the NPI total score; (Phase 2) no differences were observed at follow-up. |
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 Kingdom | 4 | 44% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 22% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 357 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 355 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 61 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 59 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 56 | 16% |
| Researcher | 42 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 13% |
| Unknown | 80 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 44 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 41 | 11% |
| Engineering | 41 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 33 | 9% |
| Other | 70 | 20% |
| Unknown | 94 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 13 September 2022.
All research outputs
#986,326
of 25,402,889 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#225
of 5,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,270
of 277,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#3
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,402,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 277,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.