| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 | 2 | 33% |
| Spain | 2 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Scientists | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 684 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Lithuania | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 665 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 123 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 115 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 82 | 12% |
| Researcher | 59 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 41 | 6% |
| Other | 132 | 19% |
| Unknown | 132 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 115 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 102 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 75 | 11% |
| Psychology | 71 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 44 | 6% |
| Other | 118 | 17% |
| Unknown | 159 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 26 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,077,824
of 25,559,053 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#755
of 4,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,232
of 126,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#5
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,559,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 126,234 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.