↓ Skip to main content

Ocular Tremor in Parkinson’s Disease: Discussion, Debate, and Controversy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Ocular Tremor in Parkinson’s Disease: Discussion, Debate, and Controversy
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diego Kaski, Adolfo M. Bronstein

Abstract

The identification of ocular tremor in a small cohort of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) had lay somewhat dormant until the recent report of a pervasive ocular tremor as a universal finding in a large PD cohort that was, however, generally absent from a cohort of age-matched healthy subjects. The reported tremor had frequency characteristics similar to those of PD limb tremor, but the amplitude and frequency of the tremor did not correlate with clinical tremor ratings. Much controversy ensued as to the origin of such a tremor, and specifically as to whether a pervasive ocular tremor was a fundamental feature of PD, or rather a compensatory eye oscillation secondary to a transmitted head tremor, and thus a measure of a normal vestibulo-ocular reflex. In this mini review, we summarize some of the evidence for and against the case for a pervasive ocular tremor in PD and suggest future experiments that may help resolve these conflicting opinions.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Professor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 19%
Engineering 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,232,029
of 24,616,908 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#410
of 13,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,543
of 314,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#9
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,616,908 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 314,405 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.