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 |
Localization of Deep Brain Stimulation Contacts Using Corticospinal/Corticobulbar Tracts Stimulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2017.00239 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julien F. Bally, Maria-Isabel Vargas, Judit Horvath, Vanessa Fleury, Pierre Burkhard, Shahan Momjian, Pierre Pollak, Colette Boex |
| Abstract |
Successful deep brain stimulation (DBS) in Parkinson's disease (PD) requires optimal electrode placement. One technique of intraoperative electrode testing is determination of stimulation thresholds inducing corticospinal/corticobulbar tracts (CSBT) motor contractions. This study aims to analyze correlations between DBS electrode distance to CSBT and contraction thresholds, with either visual or electromyography (EMG) detection, to establish an intraoperative tool devoted to ensure safe distance of the electrode to the CSBT. Twelve PD patients with subthalamic nucleus DBS participated. Thresholds of muscular contractions were assessed clinically and with EMG, for three different sets of stimulation parameters, all monopolar: 130 Hz high-frequency stimulation (HFS); 2 Hz low-frequency stimulation with either 60 or 210 µs (LFS-60, LFS-210). The anatomical distance of electrode contacts to CSBT was measured from fused CT-MRI. The best linear correlation was found for thresholds of visually detected contractions with HFS (r(2) = 0.63, p < 0.0001) when estimated stimulation currents rather than voltages were used. This correlation was found in agreement with an accepted model of electrical spatial extent of activation (r(2) = 0.50). When using LFS, the correlation found remained lower than for HFS but increased when EMG was used. Indeed, the detection of contraction thresholds with EMG versus visual inspection did allow more frequent detection of face contractions, contributing to improve that correlation. The correlation between electrode distance to the CSBT and contraction thresholds was found better when estimated with currents rather than voltage, eliminating the variance due to electrode impedance. Using LFS did not improve the precision of that evaluation, but EMG did. This technique provides a prediction band to ensure minimum distance of the electrode contacts to the CSBT, integrating the variance that can be encountered between prediction of models and practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 7 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 25% |
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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,897,310
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,120
of 11,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,322
of 316,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#107
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 316,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.