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 |
Inconsistent Effects of Parietal α-tACS on Pseudoneglect across Two Experiments: A Failed Internal Replication
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00952 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Domenica Veniero, Christopher S.Y. Benwell, Merle M. Ahrens, Gregor Thut |
| Abstract |
Transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) is being investigated as an experimental and clinical interventional technique in human participants. While promising, important limitations have been identified, including weak effect sizes and high inter- and intra-individual variability of outcomes. Here, we compared two "inhibitory" tES-techniques with supposedly different mechanisms of action as to their effects on performance in a visuospatial attention task, and report on a direct replication attempt. In two experiments, 2 × 20 healthy participants underwent tES in three separate sessions testing different protocols (10 min stimulation each) with a montage targeting right parietal cortex (right parietal-left frontal, electrode-sizes: 3cm × 3cm-7 cm × 5 cm), while performing a perceptual line bisection (landmark) task. The tES-protocols were compared as to their ability to modulate pseudoneglect (thought to be under right hemispheric control). In experiment 1, sham-tES was compared to transcranial alternating current stimulation at alpha frequency (10 Hz; α-tACS) (expected to entrain "inhibitory" alpha oscillations) and to cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (c-tDCS) (shown to suppress neuronal spiking activity). In experiment 2, we attempted to replicate the findings of experiment 1, and establish frequency-specificity by adding a 45 Hz-tACS condition to α-tACS and sham. In experiment 1, right parietal α-tACS led to the expected changes in spatial attention bias, namely a rightward shift in subjective midpoint estimation (relative to sham). However, this was not confirmed in experiment 2 and in the complete sample. Right parietal c-tDCS and 45 Hz-tACS had no effect. These results highlight the importance of replication studies, adequate statistical power and optimizing tES-interventions for establishing the robustness and reliability of electrical stimulation effects, and best practice. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 2 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 25% |
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 33 | 31% |
| Neuroscience | 19 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 6% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 4% |
| Unknown | 36 | 33% |
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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#14,969,891
of 24,226,848 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#15,181
of 32,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,138
of 321,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#363
of 599 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,226,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 321,150 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 599 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.