↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of Concurrent Motor and Language Recovery during Intensive Therapy in Chronic Stroke Patients: Four Single-Case Studies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Determinants of Concurrent Motor and Language Recovery during Intensive Therapy in Chronic Stroke Patients: Four Single-Case Studies
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00215
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annika Primaßin, Nina Scholtes, Stefan Heim, Walter Huber, Martina Neuschäfer, Ferdinand Binkofski, Cornelius J. Werner

Abstract

Despite intensive research on mechanisms of recovery of function after stroke, surprisingly little is known about determinants of concurrent recovery of language and motor functions in single patients. The alternative hypotheses are that the two functions might either "fight for resources" or use the same mechanisms in the recovery process. Here, we present follow-up data of four exemplary patients with different base levels of motor and language abilities. We assessed functional scales and performed exact lesion analysis to examine the connection between lesion parameters and recovery potential in each domain. Results confirm that preservation of the corticospinal tracts (CSTs) is a neural predictor for good motor recovery while preservation of the arcuate fasciculus (AF) is important for a good language recovery. However, results further indicate that even patients with large lesions in CST, AF, and superior longitudinal fasciculus, respectively, are able to recover their motor/language abilities during intensive therapy. We further found some indicators of a facilitating interaction between motor and language recovery. Patients with positive improvement of motor skills after therapy also improved in language skills, while the patients with no motor improvements were not able to gain any language recovery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Professor 4 8%
Other 10 19%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Unspecified 3 6%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 15 28%
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 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,015,492
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,143
of 12,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,308
of 280,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#56
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 280,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.