↓ Skip to main content

Time to Move Again: Does the Bereitschaftspotential Covary with Demands on Internal Timing?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Time to Move Again: Does the Bereitschaftspotential Covary with Demands on Internal Timing?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00642
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rolf Verleger, Mechthild Haake, Alexandra Baur, Kamila Śmigasiewicz

Abstract

When Bereitschaftspotentials (BPs) are measured, participants are required to voluntarily perform a predefined number of identical movements, with varying intervals between movements, exceeding some obligatory minimum interval. Participants might cope with these demands on timing by installing a slow, broadly tuned rhythm of activation, serving as an internal trigger for executing movements in time. The BP might reflect the rising phase of this activation, culminating at the movement. If so (i) not only should BP amplitudes become larger, but BPs should also have their onsets earlier before movements when longer minimum intervals are required between movements (Experiment 1). Further, (ii) BP amplitudes should covary with demands on internal timing: decrease when internal timing is less necessary and increase in the other case. Variation of timing demands was realized by requiring participants to count vs. not to count the seconds between movements (Experiment 1) and by regular vs. irregular vs. no ticking of a clock (Experiment 2). Prediction (i) was confirmed while prediction (ii) was not. Thus, BP onsets did vary in accordance with the temporal constraints about when the movements should be performed, suggesting some relation to timing mechanisms, but we could not provide evidence for the notion that the process reflected by BPs is this timing mechanism.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 4 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 13 30%
Psychology 8 19%
Sports and Recreations 4 9%
Engineering 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 4 9%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 December 2016.
All research outputs
#13,796,561
of 22,908,162 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,222
of 7,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,380
of 420,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#112
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,908,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,175 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 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 420,684 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.