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 |
Is Congenital Amusia a Disconnection Syndrome? A Study Combining Tract- and Network-Based Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00473 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jieqiong Wang, Caicai Zhang, Shibiao Wan, Gang Peng |
| Abstract |
Previous studies on congenital amusia mainly focused on the impaired fronto-temporal pathway. It is possible that neural pathways of amusia patients on a larger scale are affected. In this study, we investigated changes in structural connections by applying both tract-based and network-based analysis to DTI data of 12 subjects with congenital amusia and 20 demographic-matched normal controls. TBSS (tract-based spatial statistics) was used to detect microstructural changes. The results showed that amusics had higher diffusivity indices in the corpus callosum, the right inferior/superior longitudinal fasciculus, and the right inferior frontal-occipital fasciculus (IFOF). The axial diffusivity values of the right IFOF were negatively correlated with musical scores in the amusia group. Network-based analysis showed that the efficiency of the brain network was reduced in amusics. The impairments of WM tracts were also found to be correlated with reduced network efficiency in amusics. This suggests that impaired WM tracts may lead to the reduced network efficiency seen in amusics. Our findings suggest that congenital amusia is a disconnection syndrome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 6 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 6 | 19% |
| Linguistics | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#20,446,373
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#6,562
of 7,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,225
of 321,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#133
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,188 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 321,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.