↓ Skip to main content

An exploratory fNIRS study with immersive virtual reality: a new method for technical implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
An exploratory fNIRS study with immersive virtual reality: a new method for technical implementation
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00176
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Seraglia, Luciano Gamberini, Konstantinos Priftis, Pietro Scatturin, Massimiliano Martinelli, Simone Cutini

Abstract

For over two decades Virtual Reality (VR) has been used as a useful tool in several fields, from medical and psychological treatments, to industrial and military applications. Only in recent years researchers have begun to study the neural correlates that subtend VR experiences. Even if the functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) is the most common and used technique, it suffers several limitations and problems. Here we present a methodology that involves the use of a new and growing brain imaging technique, functional Near-infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), while participants experience immersive VR. In order to allow a proper fNIRS probe application, a custom-made VR helmet was created. To test the adapted helmet, a virtual version of the line bisection task was used. Participants could bisect the lines in a virtual peripersonal or extrapersonal space, through the manipulation of a Nintendo Wiimote ® controller in order for the participants to move a virtual laser pointer. Although no neural correlates of the dissociation between peripersonal and extrapersonal space were found, a significant hemodynamic activity with respect to the baseline was present in the right parietal and occipital areas. Both advantages and disadvantages of the presented methodology are discussed.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 3%
Cyprus 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 136 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 18%
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Master 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Professor 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 30 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 20%
Neuroscience 25 17%
Engineering 15 10%
Computer Science 11 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 7%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 32 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 February 2019.
All research outputs
#13,134,992
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,840
of 7,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,479
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#62
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.