↓ Skip to main content

Resting developments: a review of fMRI post-processing methodologies for spontaneous brain activity

Overview of attention for article published in Magnetic Resonance Materials in Biology, Physics, & Medicine, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 105)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
502 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Resting developments: a review of fMRI post-processing methodologies for spontaneous brain activity
Published in
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Biology, Physics, & Medicine, October 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10334-010-0228-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel S. Margulies, Joachim Böttger, Xiangyu Long, Yating Lv, Clare Kelly, Alexander Schäfer, Dirk Goldhahn, Alexander Abbushi, Michael P. Milham, Gabriele Lohmann, Arno Villringer

Abstract

Analytic tools for addressing spontaneous brain activity, as acquired with fMRI during the "resting-state," have grown dramatically over the past decade. Along with each new technique, novel hypotheses about the functional organization of the brain are also available to researchers. We review six prominent categories of resting-state fMRI data analysis: seed-based functional connectivity, independent component analysis, clustering, pattern classification, graph theory, and two "local" methods. In surveying these methods, we address their underlying assumptions, methodologies, and novel applications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 502 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 2%
Germany 10 2%
Netherlands 7 1%
United Kingdom 7 1%
Canada 5 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Austria 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Other 11 2%
Unknown 442 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 136 27%
Researcher 125 25%
Student > Master 72 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 28 6%
Other 107 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 122 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 86 17%
Neuroscience 76 15%
Unspecified 59 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 55 11%
Other 104 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 May 2013.
All research outputs
#2,122,962
of 9,500,403 outputs
Outputs from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Biology, Physics, & Medicine
#13
of 105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,588
of 85,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Magnetic Resonance Materials in Biology, Physics, & Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,500,403 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 85,826 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them