↓ Skip to main content

Cognitive, Emotional, and Auto-Activation Dimensions of Apathy in Parkinson's Disease

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Cognitive, Emotional, and Auto-Activation Dimensions of Apathy in Parkinson's Disease
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00230
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan Del-Monte, Sophie Bayard, Pierluigi Graziani, Marie C. Gély-Nargeot

Abstract

Apathy is one of the most frequent non-motor manifestations in Parkinson's disease (PD) that can lead to a whole range of deleterious outcomes. In 2006, Levy and Dubois proposed a model that distinguishes three different apathy aetiologies in PD divided into three subtypes of disrupted processing: "emotional-affective," "cognitive," and "auto-activation." These three dimensions associated with dopamine depletion present in the pathology would lead to the emergence of apathy in PD. The aim of this mini-review was to describe and discuss studies that have explore links between apathy and the three subtypes of disrupted processing proposed by Levy and Dubois (2006) and as well as the links between these dimensions and dopamine depletion in Parkinson's disease. The lack of consensus regarding the emotional-affective correlates of apathy and the lack of evidence supporting the hypothesis of the auto-activation deficit, do not clearly confirm the validity of Levy and Dubois's model. Furthermore, the suggested association between dopaminergic depletion and apathy must also be clarified.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 7 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 28%
Neuroscience 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 10 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 04 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,483,026
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,238
of 3,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,042
of 437,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#55
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,200 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 437,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.