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 |
Ghosts in the Machine. Interoceptive Modeling for Chronic Pain Treatment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnins.2016.00314 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniele Di Lernia, Silvia Serino, Pietro Cipresso, Giuseppe Riva |
| Abstract |
Pain is a complex and multidimensional perception, embodied in our daily experiences through interoceptive appraisal processes. The article reviews the recent literature about interoception along with predictive coding theories and tries to explain a missing link between the sense of the physiological condition of the entire body and the perception of pain in chronic conditions, which are characterized by interoceptive deficits. Understanding chronic pain from an interoceptive point of view allows us to better comprehend the multidimensional nature of this specific organic information, integrating the input of several sources from Gifford's Mature Organism Model to Melzack's neuromatrix. The article proposes the concept of residual interoceptive images (ghosts), to explain the diffuse multilevel nature of chronic pain perceptions. Lastly, we introduce a treatment concept, forged upon the possibility to modify the interoceptive chronic representation of pain through external input in a process that we call interoceptive modeling, with the ultimate goal of reducing pain in chronic subjects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 12% |
| Australia | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Belgium | 1 | 4% |
| Denmark | 1 | 4% |
| Ireland | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 81% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 116 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 28 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 14 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 38 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,093,364
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#1,188
of 11,653 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,607
of 367,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#24
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,653 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 367,755 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.