↓ Skip to main content

A role for locus coeruleus in Parkinson tremor

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
97 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
A role for locus coeruleus in Parkinson tremor
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00179
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ioannis U. Isaias, Alberto Marzegan, Gianni Pezzoli, Giorgio Marotta, Margherita Canesi, Gabriele E. M. Biella, Jens Volkmann, Paolo Cavallari

Abstract

We analyzed rest tremor, one of the etiologically most elusive hallmarks of Parkinson disease (PD), in 12 consecutive PD patients during a specific task activating the locus coeruleus (LC) to investigate a putative role of noradrenaline (NA) in tremor generation and suppression. Clinical diagnosis was confirmed in all subjects by reduced dopamine reuptake transporter (DAT) binding values investigated by single photon computed tomography imaging (SPECT) with [(123)I] N-ω-fluoropropyl-2β-carbomethoxy-3β-(4-iodophenyl) tropane (FP-CIT). The intensity of tremor (i.e., the power of Electromyography [EMG] signals), but not its frequency, significantly increased during the task. In six subjects, tremor appeared selectively during the task. In a second part of the study, we retrospectively reviewed SPECT with FP-CIT data and confirmed the lack of correlation between dopaminergic loss and tremor by comparing DAT binding values of 82 PD subjects with bilateral tremor (n = 27), unilateral tremor (n = 22), and no tremor (n = 33). This study suggests a role of the LC in Parkinson tremor.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
India 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Slovakia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 91 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 15%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Master 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 20 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 28%
Neuroscience 16 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 12%
Psychology 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 24 25%
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 03 February 2020.
All research outputs
#17,664,478
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,691
of 7,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,318
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#238
of 294 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 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 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 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 294 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.