↓ Skip to main content

Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
436 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Best practice for motor imagery: a systematic literature review on motor imagery training elements in five different disciplines
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-75
Pubmed ID
Authors

Corina Schuster, Roger Hilfiker, Oliver Amft, Anne Scheidhauer, Brian Andrews, Jenny Butler, Udo Kischka, Thierry Ettlin

Abstract

The literature suggests a beneficial effect of motor imagery (MI) if combined with physical practice, but detailed descriptions of MI training session (MITS) elements and temporal parameters are lacking. The aim of this review was to identify the characteristics of a successful MITS and compare these for different disciplines, MI session types, task focus, age, gender and MI modification during intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 436 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 416 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 93 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 17%
Student > Bachelor 73 17%
Researcher 47 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 8%
Other 115 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 22%
Sports and Recreations 71 16%
Psychology 64 15%
Unspecified 47 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 10%
Other 114 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#521,009
of 13,309,886 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#458
of 2,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,056
of 86,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,309,886 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,120 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 86,316 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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