↓ Skip to main content

Computational Modeling and Neuroimaging Techniques for Targeting during Deep Brain Stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, June 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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Computational Modeling and Neuroimaging Techniques for Targeting during Deep Brain Stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroanatomy, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnana.2016.00071
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A. Sweet, Jonathan Pace, Fady Girgis, Jonathan P. Miller

Abstract

Accurate surgical localization of the varied targets for deep brain stimulation (DBS) is a process undergoing constant evolution, with increasingly sophisticated techniques to allow for highly precise targeting. However, despite the fastidious placement of electrodes into specific structures within the brain, there is increasing evidence to suggest that the clinical effects of DBS are likely due to the activation of widespread neuronal networks directly and indirectly influenced by the stimulation of a given target. Selective activation of these complex and inter-connected pathways may further improve the outcomes of currently treated diseases by targeting specific fiber tracts responsible for a particular symptom in a patient-specific manner. Moreover, the delivery of such focused stimulation may aid in the discovery of new targets for electrical stimulation to treat additional neurological, psychiatric, and even cognitive disorders. As such, advancements in surgical targeting, computational modeling, engineering designs, and neuroimaging techniques play a critical role in this process. This article reviews the progress of these applications, discussing the importance of target localization for DBS, and the role of computational modeling and novel neuroimaging in improving our understanding of the pathophysiology of diseases, and thus paving the way for improved selective target localization using DBS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 28%
Student > Bachelor 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Master 6 6%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 22 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Engineering 18 17%
Psychology 4 4%
Computer Science 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 31 29%
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 30 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,267,420
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#663
of 1,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,441
of 351,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroanatomy
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 351,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.