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 |
Visual rehabilitation: visual scanning, multisensory stimulation and vision restoration trainings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00192 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neil M. Dundon, Caterina Bertini, Elisabetta Làdavas, Bernhard A. Sabel, Carolin Gall |
| Abstract |
Neuropsychological training methods of visual rehabilitation for homonymous vision loss caused by postchiasmatic damage fall into two fundamental paradigms: "compensation" and "restoration". Existing methods can be classified into three groups: Visual Scanning Training (VST), Audio-Visual Scanning Training (AViST) and Vision Restoration Training (VRT). VST and AViST aim at compensating vision loss by training eye scanning movements, whereas VRT aims at improving lost vision by activating residual visual functions by training light detection and discrimination of visual stimuli. This review discusses the rationale underlying these paradigms and summarizes the available evidence with respect to treatment efficacy. The issues raised in our review should help guide clinical care and stimulate new ideas for future research uncovering the underlying neural correlates of the different treatment paradigms. We propose that both local "within-system" interactions (i.e., relying on plasticity within peri-lesional spared tissue) and changes in more global "between-system" networks (i.e., recruiting alternative visual pathways) contribute to both vision restoration and compensatory rehabilitation, which ultimately have implications for the rehabilitation of cognitive functions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Professor | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 29 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 20 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 37 | 29% |
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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#13,742,163
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,710
of 3,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,623
of 262,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#54
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 262,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.