↓ Skip to main content

Topography of Synchronization of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials Elicited by Stimulation of the Sciatic Nerve in Rat

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Topography of Synchronization of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials Elicited by Stimulation of the Sciatic Nerve in Rat
Published in
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fncom.2016.00043
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qu, Xuefeng, Yan, Jiaqing, Li, Xiaoli, Zhang, Peixun, Liu, Xianzeng

Abstract

Traditionally, the topography of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) is generated based on amplitude and latency. However, this operation focuses on the physical morphology and field potential-power, so it suffers from difficulties in performing identification in an objective manner. In this study, measurement of the synchronization of SEPs is proposed as a method to explore brain functional networks as well as the plasticity after peripheral nerve injury. SEPs elicited by unilateral sciatic nerve stimulation in twelve adult male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats in the normal group were compared with SEPs evoked after unilateral sciatic nerve hemisection in four peripheral nerve injured SD rats. The characterization of synchronized networks from SEPs was conducted using equal-time correlation, correlation matrix analysis, and comparison to randomized surrogate data. Eigenvalues of the correlation matrix were used to identify the clusters of functionally synchronized neuronal activity, and the participation index (PI) was calculated to indicate the involvement of each channel in the cluster. The PI value at the knee point of the PI histogram was used as a threshold to demarcate the cortical boundary. Ten out of the twelve normal rats showed only one synchronized brain network. The remaining two normal rats showed one strong and one weak network. In the peripheral nerve injured group, only one synchronized brain network was found in each rat. In the normal group, all network shapes appear regular and the network is largely contained in the posterior cortex. In the injured group, the network shapes appear irregular, the network extends anteriorly and posteriorly, and the network area is significantly larger. There are considerable individual variations in the shape and location of the network after peripheral nerve injury. The proposed method can detect functional brain networks. Compared to the results of the traditional SEP-morphology-based analysis method, the synchronized functional network area is much larger. Furthermore, the proposed method can also characterize the rapid cortical plasticity after a peripheral nerve is acutely injured.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 24%
Neuroscience 4 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Chemistry 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
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 21 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,468,145
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#574
of 1,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,343
of 298,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
#9
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 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 1,345 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 54% 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 298,972 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.