↓ Skip to main content

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurofeedback-guided Motor Imagery Training and Motor Training for Parkinson’s Disease: Randomized Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
23 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 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
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Neurofeedback-guided Motor Imagery Training and Motor Training for Parkinson’s Disease: Randomized Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leena Subramanian, Monica Busse Morris, Meadhbh Brosnan, Duncan L. Turner, Huw R. Morris, David E. J. Linden

Abstract

Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI) neurofeedback (NF) uses feedback of the patient's own brain activity to self-regulate brain networks which in turn could lead to a change in behavior and clinical symptoms. The objective was to determine the effect of NF and motor training (MOT) alone on motor and non-motor functions in Parkinson's Disease (PD) in a 10-week small Phase I randomized controlled trial. Thirty patients with Parkinson's disease (PD; Hoehn and Yahr I-III) and no significant comorbidity took part in the trial with random allocation to two groups. Group 1 (NF: 15 patients) received rt-fMRI-NF with MOT. Group 2 (MOT: 15 patients) received MOT alone. The primary outcome measure was the Movement Disorder Society-Unified PD Rating Scale-Motor scale (MDS-UPDRS-MS), administered pre- and post-intervention "off-medication". The secondary outcome measures were the "on-medication" MDS-UPDRS, the PD Questionnaire-39, and quantitative motor assessments after 4 and 10 weeks. Patients in the NF group were able to upregulate activity in the supplementary motor area (SMA) by using motor imagery. They improved by an average of 4.5 points on the MDS-UPDRS-MS in the "off-medication" state (95% confidence interval: -2.5 to -6.6), whereas the MOT group improved only by 1.9 points (95% confidence interval +3.2 to -6.8). The improvement in the intervention group meets the minimal clinically important difference which is also on par with other non-invasive therapies such as repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS). However, the improvement did not differ significantly between the groups. No adverse events were reported in either group. This Phase I study suggests that NF combined with MOT is safe and improves motor symptoms immediately after treatment, but larger trials are needed to explore its superiority over active control conditions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 199 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 17%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Bachelor 22 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 9%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 39 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 43 21%
Psychology 35 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 54 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 11 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,038,912
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#346
of 3,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,445
of 340,468 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#4
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 340,468 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 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 92% of its contemporaries.