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 |
Activation and inhibition of posterior parietal cortex have bi-directional effects on spatial errors following interruptions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00245 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cyrus K. Foroughi, Eric J. Blumberg, Raja Parasuraman |
| Abstract |
Interruptions to ongoing mental activities are omnipresent in our modern digital world, but the brain networks involved in interrupted performance are not known, nor have the activation of those networks been modulated. Errors following interruptions reflect failures in spatial memory, whose maintenance is supported by a brain network including the right posterior parietal cortex (PPC). The present study therefore used bi-directional transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) of right PPC to examine the neuromodulation of spatial errors following interruptions, as well as performance on another PPC-dependent task, mental rotation. Anodal stimulation significantly reduced the number of interruption-based errors and increased mental rotation accuracy whereas cathodal stimulation significantly increased errors and reduced mental rotation accuracy. The results provide evidence for a causal role of the PPC in the maintenance of spatial representations during interrupted task performance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 37% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 9% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#1,127
of 1,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,819
of 352,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#39
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,341 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 352,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.