↓ Skip to main content

tDCS of the Cerebellum: Where Do We Stand in 2016? Technical Issues and Critical Review of the Literature

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
tDCS of the Cerebellum: Where Do We Stand in 2016? Technical Issues and Critical Review of the Literature
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00199
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kim van Dun, Florian C. A. A. Bodranghien, Peter Mariën, Mario U. Manto

Abstract

Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is an up-and-coming electrical neurostimulation technique increasingly used both in healthy subjects and in selected groups of patients. Due to the high density of neurons in the cerebellum, its peculiar anatomical organization with the cortex lying superficially below the skull and its diffuse connections with motor and associative areas of the cerebrum, the cerebellum is becoming a major target for neuromodulation of the cerebellocerebral networks. We discuss the recent studies based on cerebellar tDCS with a focus on the numerous technical and open issues which remain to be solved. Our current knowledge of the physiological impacts of tDCS on cerebellar circuitry is criticized. We provide a comparison with transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS), another promising transcranial electrical neurostimulation technique. Although both tDCS and tACS are becoming established techniques to modulate the cerebellocerebral networks, it is surprising that their impacts on cerebellar disorders remains unclear. A major reason is that the literature lacks large trials with a double-blind, sham-controlled, and cross-over experimental design in cerebellar patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 175 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 20%
Researcher 28 15%
Student > Master 28 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Professor 10 6%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 43 24%
Psychology 36 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 14%
Engineering 10 6%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 44 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 January 2017.
All research outputs
#6,206,448
of 23,832,995 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#2,454
of 7,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,943
of 311,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#53
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,832,995 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 311,958 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 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 68% of its contemporaries.