↓ Skip to main content

Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
356 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
Non-invasive brain stimulation in neurorehabilitation: local and distant effects for motor recovery
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, June 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00378
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sook-Lei Liew, Emilliano Santarnecchi, Ethan R. Buch, Leonardo G. Cohen

Abstract

Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) may enhance motor recovery after neurological injury through the causal induction of plasticity processes. Neurological injury, such as stroke, often results in serious long-term physical disabilities, and despite intensive therapy, a large majority of brain injury survivors fail to regain full motor function. Emerging research suggests that NIBS techniques, such as transcranial magnetic (TMS) and direct current (tDCS) stimulation, in association with customarily used neurorehabilitative treatments, may enhance motor recovery. This paper provides a general review on TMS and tDCS paradigms, the mechanisms by which they operate and the stimulation techniques used in neurorehabilitation, specifically stroke. TMS and tDCS influence regional neural activity underlying the stimulation location and also distant interconnected network activity throughout the brain. We discuss recent studies that document NIBS effects on global brain activity measured with various neuroimaging techniques, which help to characterize better strategies for more accurate NIBS stimulation. These rapidly growing areas of inquiry may hold potential for improving the effectiveness of NIBS-based interventions for clinical rehabilitation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 339 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 18%
Researcher 56 16%
Student > Master 51 14%
Student > Bachelor 43 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 4%
Other 66 19%
Unknown 61 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 75 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 70 20%
Psychology 39 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 6%
Engineering 22 6%
Other 41 12%
Unknown 87 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 August 2014.
All research outputs
#12,901,057
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,674
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,447
of 227,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#156
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 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 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 227,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.