↓ Skip to main content

Guidelines and quality measures for the diagnosis of optic ataxia

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Guidelines and quality measures for the diagnosis of optic ataxia
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00324
Pubmed ID
Authors

Svenja Borchers, Laura Müller, Matthis Synofzik, Marc Himmelbach

Abstract

Since the first description of a systematic mis-reaching by Bálint in 1909, a reasonable number of patients showing a similar phenomenology, later termed optic ataxia (OA), has been described. However, there is surprising inconsistency regarding the behavioral measures that are used to detect OA in experimental and clinical reports, if the respective measures are reported at all. A typical screening method that was presumably used by most researchers and clinicians, reaching for a target object in the peripheral visual space, has never been evaluated. We developed a set of instructions and evaluation criteria for the scoring of a semi-standardized version of this reaching task. We tested 36 healthy participants, a group of 52 acute and chronic stroke patients, and 24 patients suffering from cerebellar ataxia. We found a high interrater reliability and a moderate test-retest reliability comparable to other clinical instruments in the stroke sample. The calculation of cut-off thresholds based on healthy control and cerebellar patient data showed an unexpected high number of false positives in these samples due to individual outliers that made a considerable number of errors in peripheral reaching. This study provides first empirical data from large control and patient groups for a screening procedure that seems to be widely used but rarely explicitly reported and prepares the grounds for its use as a standard tool for the description of patients who are included in single case or group studies addressing optic ataxia similar to the use of neglect, extinction, or apraxia screening tools.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 4%
Netherlands 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 51 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Student > Master 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 33%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,603,309
of 25,182,110 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,523
of 7,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,807
of 293,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#567
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,182,110 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 293,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 860 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.