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 |
The relevance of aging-related changes in brain function to rehabilitation in aging-related disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00307 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bruce Crosson, Keith M. McGregor, Joe R. Nocera, Jonathan H. Drucker, Stella M. Tran, Andrew J. Butler |
| Abstract |
The effects of aging on rehabilitation of aging-related diseases are rarely a design consideration in rehabilitation research. In this brief review we present strong coincidental evidence from these two fields suggesting that deficits in aging-related disease or injury are compounded by the interaction between aging-related brain changes and disease-related brain changes. Specifically, we hypothesize that some aphasia, motor, and neglect treatments using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in stroke patients may address the aging side of this interaction. The importance of testing this hypothesis and addressing the larger aging by aging-related disease interaction is discussed. Underlying mechanisms in aging that most likely are relevant to rehabilitation of aging-related diseases also are covered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 130 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 15% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 21 | 16% |
| Neuroscience | 21 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 42 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,339,713
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,265
of 7,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,571
of 266,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#141
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 266,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.