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 |
Rhythm, movement, and autism: using rhythmic rehabilitation research as a model for autism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnint.2013.00019 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle W. Hardy, A. Blythe LaGasse |
| Abstract |
Recently, there has been increased focus on movement and sensory abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). This has come from research demonstrating cortical and cerebellar differences in autism, with suggestion of early cerebellar dysfunction. As evidence for an extended profile of ASD grows, there are vast implications for treatment and therapy for individuals with autism. Persons with autism are often provided behavioral or cognitive strategies for navigating their environment; however, these strategies do not consider differences in motor functioning. One accommodation that has not yet been explored in the literature is the use of auditory rhythmic cueing to improve motor functioning in ASD. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the potential impact of auditory rhythmic cueing for motor functioning in persons with ASD. To this effect, we review research on rhythm in motor rehabilitation, draw parallels to motor dysfunction in ASD, and propose a rationale for how rhythmic input can improve sensorimotor functioning, thereby allowing individuals with autism to demonstrate their full cognitive, behavioral, social, and communicative potential. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 10 | 53% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 16% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 84% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 252 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 53 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 34 | 13% |
| Researcher | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 47 | 18% |
| Unknown | 49 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 57 | 22% |
| Neuroscience | 25 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 20 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 65 | 25% |
| Unknown | 53 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 26 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,230,016
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#64
of 919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,199
of 292,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#12
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 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 919 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 292,012 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.