↓ Skip to main content

Training-induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control

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
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
105 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Training-induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucas Spierer, Camille F. Chavan, Aurelie L. Manuel

Abstract

Deficits in inhibitory control, the ability to suppress ongoing or planned motor or cognitive processes, contribute to many psychiatric and neurological disorders. The rehabilitation of inhibition-related disorders may therefore benefit from neuroplasticity-based training protocols aiming at normalizing inhibitory control proficiency and the underlying brain networks. Current literature on training-induced behavioral and brain plasticity in inhibitory control suggests that improvements may follow either from the development of automatic forms of inhibition or from the strengthening of top-down, controlled inhibition. Automatic inhibition develops in conditions of consistent and repeated associations between inhibition-triggering stimuli and stopping goals. Once established, the stop signals directly elicit inhibition, thereby bypassing slow, top-down executive control and accelerating stopping processes. In contrast, training regimens involving varying stimulus-response associations or frequent inhibition failures prevent the development of automatic inhibition and thus strengthen top-down inhibitory processes rather than bottom-up ones. We discuss these findings in terms of developing optimal inhibitory control training regimens for rehabilitation purposes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 221 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 28%
Researcher 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 9%
Student > Master 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 36 15%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 113 48%
Neuroscience 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 3%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 51 22%
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 25 November 2013.
All research outputs
#13,387,301
of 22,715,151 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,063
of 7,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,267
of 280,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#552
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,715,151 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,129 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 280,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 862 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.