↓ Skip to main content

A Framework for Combining rTMS with Behavioral Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
A Framework for Combining rTMS with Behavioral Therapy
Published in
Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnsys.2016.00082
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Zoe Tsagaris, Douglas R. Labar, Dylan J. Edwards

Abstract

Upon its inception, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) was delivered at rest, without regard to the potential impact of activity occurring during or around the time of stimulation. rTMS was considered an experimental intervention imposed on the brain; therefore, the myriad features that might suppress or enhance its desired effects had not yet been explored. The field of rTMS has since grown substantially and therapeutic benefits have been reported, albeit with modest and inconsistent improvements. Work in this field accelerated following approval of a psychiatric application (depression), and it is now expanding to other applications and disciplines. In the last decade, experimental enquiry has sought new ways to improve the therapeutic benefits of rTMS, intended to enhance underlying brain reorganization and functional recovery by combining it with behavioral therapy. This concept is appealing, but poorly defined and requires clarity. We provide an overview of how combined rTMS and behavioral therapy has been delineated in the literature, highlighting the diversity of approaches. We outline a framework for study design and reporting such that the effects of this emerging method can be better understood.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 21 24%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 23 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Psychology 8 9%
Unspecified 7 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 09 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,479,773
of 22,889,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#750
of 1,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,931
of 306,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,889,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 306,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.