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 |
Reliability of EEG Interactions Differs between Measures and Is Specific for Neurological Diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00350 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yvonne Höller, Kevin Butz, Aljoscha Thomschewski, Elisabeth Schmid, Andreas Uhl, Arne C. Bathke, Georg Zimmermann, Santino O. Tomasi, Raffaele Nardone, Wolfgang Staffen, Peter Höller, Markus Leitinger, Julia Höfler, Gudrun Kalss, Alexandra C. Taylor, Giorgi Kuchukhidze, Eugen Trinka |
| Abstract |
Alterations of interaction (connectivity) of the EEG reflect pathological processes in patients with neurologic disorders. Nevertheless, it is questionable whether these patterns are reliable over time in different measures of interaction and whether this reliability of the measures is the same across different patient populations. In order to address this topic we examined 22 patients with mild cognitive impairment, five patients with subjective cognitive complaints, six patients with right-lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy, seven patients with left lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy, and 20 healthy controls. We calculated 14 measures of interaction from two EEG-recordings separated by 2 weeks. In order to characterize test-retest reliability, we correlated these measures for each group and compared the correlations between measures and between groups. We found that both measures of interaction as well as groups differed from each other in terms of reliability. The strongest correlation coefficients were found for spectrum, coherence, and full frequency directed transfer function (average rho > 0.9). In the delta (2-4 Hz) range, reliability was lower for mild cognitive impairment compared to healthy controls and left lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy. In the beta (13-30 Hz), gamma (31-80 Hz), and high gamma (81-125 Hz) frequency ranges we found decreased reliability in subjective cognitive complaints compared to mild cognitive impairment. In the gamma and high gamma range we found increased reliability in left lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy patients compared to healthy controls. Our results emphasize the importance of documenting reliability of measures of interaction, which may vary considerably between measures, but also between patient populations. We suggest that studies claiming clinical usefulness of measures of interaction should provide information on the reliability of the results. In addition, differences between patient groups in reliability of interactions in the EEG indicate the potential of reliability to serve as a new biomarker for pathological memory decline as well as for epilepsy. While the brain concert of information flow is generally variable, high reliability, and thus, low variability may reflect abnormal firing patterns. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 2 | 29% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 16 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 14% |
| Engineering | 8 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 10% |
| Psychology | 5 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 25% |
| Unknown | 20 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,502,830
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,175
of 7,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,154
of 314,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#84
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 314,459 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.