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 |
Test-Retest Reliability of fMRI Brain Activity during Memory Encoding
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychiatry, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00163 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David J. Brandt, Jens Sommer, Sören Krach, Johannes Bedenbender, Tilo Kircher, Frieder M. Paulus, Andreas Jansen |
| Abstract |
The mechanisms underlying hemispheric specialization of memory are not completely understood. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can be used to develop and test models of hemispheric specialization. In particular for memory tasks however, the interpretation of fMRI results is often hampered by the low reliability of the data. In the present study we therefore analyzed the test-retest reliability of fMRI brain activation related to an implicit memory encoding task, with a particular focus on brain activity of the medial temporal lobe (MTL). Fifteen healthy subjects were scanned with fMRI on two sessions (average retest interval 35 days) using a commonly applied novelty encoding paradigm contrasting known and unknown stimuli. To assess brain lateralization, we used three different stimuli classes that differed in their verbalizability (words, scenes, fractals). Test-retest reliability of fMRI brain activation was assessed by an intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC), describing the stability of inter-individual differences in the brain activation magnitude over time. We found as expected a left-lateralized brain activation network for the words paradigm, a bilateral network for the scenes paradigm, and predominantly right-hemispheric brain activation for the fractals paradigm. Although these networks were consistently activated in both sessions on the group level, across-subject reliabilities were only poor to fair (ICCs ≤ 0.45). Overall, the highest ICC values were obtained for the scenes paradigm, but only in strongly activated brain regions. In particular the reliability of brain activity of the MTL was poor for all paradigms. In conclusion, for novelty encoding paradigms the interpretation of fMRI results on a single subject level is hampered by its low reliability. More studies are needed to optimize the retest reliability of fMRI activation for memory tasks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 Kingdom | 4 | 20% |
| United States | 2 | 10% |
| Switzerland | 2 | 10% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 5% |
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 75% |
| Scientists | 3 | 15% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 3 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 96 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 28% |
| Researcher | 26 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Professor | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 15% |
| Unknown | 5 | 5% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 36 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 26 | 25% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 23 August 2014.
All research outputs
#1,600,438
of 24,920,664 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#942
of 12,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,544
of 292,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#32
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,920,664 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 292,757 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.