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 |
Putative physiological mechanisms underlying tDCS analgesic effects
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00628 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Helena Knotkova, Michael A. Nitsche, Ricardo A. Cruciani |
| Abstract |
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that induces changes in excitability, and activation of brain neurons and neuronal circuits. It has been observed that beyond regional effects under the electrodes, tDCS also alters activity of remote interconnected cortical and subcortical areas. This makes the tDCS stimulation technique potentially promising for modulation of pain syndromes. Indeed, utilizing specific montages, tDCS resulted in analgesic effects in experimental settings, as well as in post-operative acute pain and chronic pain syndromes. The promising evidence of tDCS-induced analgesic effects raises the challenging and complex question of potential physiologic mechanisms that underlie/mediate the accomplished pain relief. Here we present hypotheses on how the specific montages and targets for stimulation may affect the pain processing network. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 2 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 112 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 27 | 22% |
| Unknown | 22 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 24% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 17% |
| Psychology | 14 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 33 | 27% |
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 04 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,427,590
of 24,456,171 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,749
of 7,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#177,536
of 289,953 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#613
of 860 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,456,171 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,480 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 289,953 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.