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 |
Analysis of Neural-BOLD Coupling Through Four Models of the Neural Metabolic Demand
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2015.00419 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher W. Tyler, Lora T. Likova, Spero C. Nicholas |
| Abstract |
The coupling of the neuronal energetics to the blood-oxygen-level-dependent (BOLD) response is still incompletely understood. To address this issue, we compared the fits of four plausible models of neurometabolic coupling dynamics to available data for simultaneous recordings of the local field potential and the local BOLD response recorded from monkey primary visual cortex over a wide range of stimulus durations. The four models of the metabolic demand driving the BOLD response were: direct coupling with the overall LFP; rectified coupling to the LFP; coupling with a slow adaptive component of the implied neural population response; and coupling with the non-adaptive intracellular input signal defined by the stimulus time course. Taking all stimulus durations into account, the results imply that the BOLD response is most closely coupled with metabolic demand derived from the intracellular input waveform, without significant influence from the adaptive transients and nonlinearities exhibited by the LFP waveform. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 33% |
| Brazil | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 28% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 10 | 31% |
| Psychology | 4 | 13% |
| Engineering | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 13% |
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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,278,028
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#5,573
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,846
of 396,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#68
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 396,218 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 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.