↓ Skip to main content

Biasing neural network dynamics using non-invasive brain stimulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Biasing neural network dynamics using non-invasive brain stimulation
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, January 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00246
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martijn E. Wokke, Lotte J. Talsma, Marlies E. Vissers

Abstract

Recently, non-invasive brain stimulation (NBS) has been discovered as a tool to improve human performance on a wide variety of tasks. Although these observations are highly intriguing, the underlying mechanisms of such enhancements are still poorly understood. Here, we argue that in order to advance our understanding of these mechanisms it is necessary to focus on intrinsic network dynamics in the brain. Taking into account well-known network dynamics, increased excitation in one particular network or brain region may necessarily lead to inhibition of an opposing network (and vice versa). As a consequence, observed behavioral improvements due to NBS may emerge from a shift in the balance between (competing) neural networks in the brain, implicating that behavioral enhancement due to stimulation most likely comes with a cost or side effect. We conclude that more elaborate experimental designs are essential for a better understanding of the relationship between network interactions and the behavioral effects of NBS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 3 4%
United Kingdom 2 3%
Netherlands 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Cuba 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 58 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 28%
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Professor 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 23%
Neuroscience 14 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,597,287
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#344
of 1,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,676
of 352,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#11
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 352,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.