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 |
Cognitive Processing in Non-Communicative Patients: What Can Event-Related Potentials Tell Us?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00569 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zulay R. Lugo, Lucia R. Quitadamo, Luigi Bianchi, Fréderic Pellas, Sandra Veser, Damien Lesenfants, Ruben G. L. Real, Cornelia Herbert, Christoph Guger, Boris Kotchoubey, Donatella Mattia, Andrea Kübler, Steven Laureys, Quentin Noirhomme |
| Abstract |
Event-related potentials (ERP) have been proposed to improve the differential diagnosis of non-responsive patients. We investigated the potential of the P300 as a reliable marker of conscious processing in patients with locked-in syndrome (LIS). Eleven chronic LIS patients and 10 healthy subjects (HS) listened to a complex-tone auditory oddball paradigm, first in a passive condition (listen to the sounds) and then in an active condition (counting the deviant tones). Seven out of nine HS displayed a P300 waveform in the passive condition and all in the active condition. HS showed statistically significant changes in peak and area amplitude between conditions. Three out of seven LIS patients showed the P3 waveform in the passive condition and five of seven in the active condition. No changes in peak amplitude and only a significant difference at one electrode in area amplitude were observed in this group between conditions. We conclude that, in spite of keeping full consciousness and intact or nearly intact cortical functions, compared to HS, LIS patients present less reliable results when testing with ERP, specifically in the passive condition. We thus strongly recommend applying ERP paradigms in an active condition when evaluating consciousness in non-responsive patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 56 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 26% |
| Researcher | 11 | 19% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 21% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 14 | 24% |
| Psychology | 8 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Engineering | 5 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#16,358,532
of 25,827,956 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,900
of 7,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,492
of 314,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#113
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,827,956 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 7,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 314,440 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.