↓ Skip to main content

Origin and Evolution of Deep Brain Stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 869)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Readers on

mendeley
320 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
Origin and Evolution of Deep Brain Stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2011.00042
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vittorio A. Sironi

Abstract

This paper briefly describes how the electrical stimulation, used since antiquity to modulate the nervous system, has been a fundamental tool of neurophysiologic investigation in the second half of the eighteenth century and was subsequently used by the early twentieth century, even for therapeutic purposes. In mid-twentieth century the advent of stereotactic procedures has allowed the drift from lesional to stimulating technique of deep nuclei of the brain for therapeutic purposes. In this way, deep brain stimulation (DBS) was born, that, over the last two decades, has led to positive results for the treatment of medically refractory Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and dystonia. In recent years, the indications for therapeutic use of DBS have been extended to epilepsy, Tourette's syndrome, psychiatric diseases (depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder), some kinds of headache, eating disorders, and the minimally conscious state. The potentials of the DBS for therapeutic use are fascinating, but there are still many unresolved technical and ethical problems, concerning the identification of the targets for each disease, the selection of the patients and the evaluation of the results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 310 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 18%
Student > Master 46 14%
Researcher 35 11%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Other 19 6%
Other 66 21%
Unknown 62 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 23%
Neuroscience 63 20%
Engineering 39 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 9%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 34 11%
Unknown 71 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 02 March 2023.
All research outputs
#964,884
of 23,467,261 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#48
of 869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,711
of 183,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,467,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 183,590 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.