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 |
The contribution of interindividual factors to variability of response in transcranial direct current stimulation studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fncel.2015.00181 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lucia M. Li, Kazumasa Uehara, Takashi Hanakawa |
| Abstract |
There has been an explosion of research using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for investigating and modulating human cognitive and motor function in healthy populations. It has also been used in many studies seeking to improve deficits in disease populations. With the slew of studies reporting "promising results" for everything from motor recovery after stroke to boosting memory function, one could be easily seduced by the idea of tDCS being the next panacea for all neurological ills. However, huge variability exists in the reported effects of tDCS, with great variability in the effect sizes and even contradictory results reported. In this review, we consider the interindividual factors that may contribute to this variability. In particular, we discuss the importance of baseline neuronal state and features, anatomy, age and the inherent variability in the injured brain. We additionally consider how interindividual variability affects the results of motor-evoked potential (MEP) testing with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which, in turn, can lead to apparent variability in response to tDCS in motor studies. |
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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 539 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 533 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 109 | 20% |
| Researcher | 76 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 70 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 52 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 37 | 7% |
| Other | 87 | 16% |
| Unknown | 108 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 123 | 23% |
| Psychology | 107 | 20% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 68 | 13% |
| Engineering | 24 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 3% |
| Other | 53 | 10% |
| Unknown | 146 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 22 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,086,082
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#1,697
of 4,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,709
of 264,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience
#54
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,241 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 264,481 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.