↓ Skip to main content

Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
patent
1 patent
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
341 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
Origins of specificity during tDCS: anatomical, activity-selective, and input-bias mechanisms
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00688
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marom Bikson, name, Asif Rahman

Abstract

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is investigated for a broad range of neuropsychiatric indications, various rehabilitation applications, and to modulate cognitive performance in diverse tasks. Specificity of tDCS refers broadly to the ability of tDCS to produce precise, as opposed to diffuse, changes in brain function. Practically, specificity of tDCS implies application-specific customization of protocols to maximize desired outcomes and minimize undesired effects. Especially given the simplicity of tDCS and the complexity of brain function, understanding the mechanisms leading to specificity is fundamental to the rational advancement of tDCS. We define the origins of specificity based on anatomical and functional factors. Anatomical specificity derives from guiding current to targeted brain structures. Functional specificity may derive from either activity-selectivity, where active neuronal networks are preferentially modulated by tDCS, or input-selectivity, where bias is applied to different synaptic inputs. Rational advancement of tDCS may require leveraging all forms of specificity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 331 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 18%
Researcher 59 17%
Student > Master 41 12%
Student > Bachelor 40 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 5%
Other 49 14%
Unknown 73 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 74 22%
Neuroscience 69 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 9%
Engineering 13 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Other 35 10%
Unknown 111 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,090,805
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,920
of 7,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,574
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#289
of 862 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
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 280,760 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.