↓ Skip to main content

Contributions and complexities from the use of in vivo animal models to improve understanding of human neuroimaging signals

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Contributions and complexities from the use of in vivo animal models to improve understanding of human neuroimaging signals
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2014.00211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Martin

Abstract

Many of the major advances in our understanding of how functional brain imaging signals relate to neuronal activity over the previous two decades have arisen from physiological research studies involving experimental animal models. This approach has been successful partly because it provides opportunities to measure both the hemodynamic changes that underpin many human functional brain imaging techniques and the neuronal activity about which we wish to make inferences. Although research into the coupling of neuronal and hemodynamic responses using animal models has provided a general validation of the correspondence of neuroimaging signals to specific types of neuronal activity, it is also highlighting the key complexities and uncertainties in estimating neural signals from hemodynamic markers. This review will detail how research in animal models is contributing to our rapidly evolving understanding of what human neuroimaging techniques tell us about neuronal activity. It will highlight emerging issues in the interpretation of neuroimaging data that arise from in vivo research studies, for example spatial and temporal constraints to neuroimaging signal interpretation, or the effects of disease and modulatory neurotransmitters upon neurovascular coupling. We will also give critical consideration to the limitations and possible complexities of translating data acquired in the typical animals models used in this area to the arena of human fMRI. These include the commonplace use of anesthesia in animal research studies and the fact that many neuropsychological questions that are being actively explored in humans have limited homologs within current animal models for neuroimaging research. Finally we will highlighting approaches, both in experimental animals models (e.g. imaging in conscious, behaving animals) and human studies (e.g. combined fMRI-EEG), that mitigate against these challenges.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Chile 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 102 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 22%
Researcher 19 18%
Student > Master 18 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 30 28%
Engineering 11 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 25 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,536,995
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,780
of 11,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,732
of 247,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#54
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,541 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 247,171 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.