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 |
Penfield’s Prediction: A Mechanism for Deep Brain Stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2014.00213 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard W. Murrow |
| Abstract |
Despite its widespread use, the precise mechanism of action of Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) therapy remains unknown. The modern urgency to publish more and new data can obscure previously learned lessons by the giants who have preceded us and whose shoulders we now stand upon. Wilder Penfield extensively studied the effects of artificial electrical brain stimulation and his comments on the subject are still very relevant today. In particular, he noted two very different (and seemingly opposite) effects of stimulation within the human brain. In some structures, artificial electrical stimulation has an effect, which mimics ablation, while, in other structures, it produces a stimulatory effect on that tissue. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| China | 1 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 54 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 17% |
| Engineering | 6 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#8,012,926
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,998
of 14,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,587
of 272,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#29
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 272,582 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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 66% of its contemporaries.