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 |
Comparison of Three Non-Invasive Transcranial Electrical Stimulation Methods for Increasing Cortical Excitability
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00668 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yasuto Inukai, Kei Saito, Ryoki Sasaki, Shota Tsuiki, Shota Miyaguchi, Sho Kojima, Mitsuhiro Masaki, Naofumi Otsuru, Hideaki Onishi |
| Abstract |
Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a representative non-invasive brain stimulation method (NIBS). tDCS increases cortical excitability not only in healthy individuals, but also in stroke patients where it contributes to motor function improvement. Recently, two additional types of transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) methods have been introduced that may also prove beneficial for stimulating cortical excitability; these are transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) and transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS). However, comparison of tDCS with tRNS and tACS, in terms of efficacy in cortical excitability alteration, has not been reported thus far. We compared the efficacy of the three different tES methods for increasing cortical excitability using the same subject population and same current intensity. Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this study. Similar stimulation patterns (1.0 mA and 10 min) were used for the three conditions of stimulation (tDCS, tRNS, and tACS). Cortical excitability was explored via single-pulse TMS elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Compared with pre-measurements, MEPs significantly increased with tDCS, tACS, and tRNS (p < 0.05). Compared with sham measurements, significant increases in MEPs were also observed with tRNS and tACS (p < 0.05), but not with tDCS. In addition, a significant correlation of the mean stimulation effect was observed between tRNS and tACS (p = 0.019, r = 0.598). tRNS induced a significant increase in MEP compared with the Pre or Sham at all time points. tRNS resulted in the largest significant increase in MEPs. These findings suggest that tRNS is the most effective tES method and should be considered as part of a treatment plan for improving motor function in stroke patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 States | 4 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 9% |
| Japan | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 27% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 266 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 264 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 42 | 16% |
| Researcher | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 15% |
| Unknown | 47 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 71 | 27% |
| Psychology | 39 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 9% |
| Engineering | 14 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 37 | 14% |
| Unknown | 70 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 08 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,582,660
of 24,969,131 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,696
of 7,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,345
of 432,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#37
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,969,131 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 432,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.