↓ Skip to main content

Congenital deafness is associated with specific somatosensory deficits in adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Congenital deafness is associated with specific somatosensory deficits in adolescents
Published in
Scientific Reports, June 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-04074-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rabih Moshourab, Valérie Bégay, Christiane Wetzel, Jan Walcher, Steven Middleton, Manfred Gross, Gary R. Lewin

Abstract

Hearing and touch represent two distinct sensory systems that both rely on the transformation of mechanical force into electrical signals. Here we used a battery of quantitative sensory tests to probe touch, thermal and pain sensitivity in a young control population (14-20 years old) compared to age-matched individuals with congenital hearing loss. Sensory testing was performed on the dominant hand of 111 individuals with normal hearing and 36 with congenital hearing loss. Subjects with congenital deafness were characterized by significantly higher vibration detection thresholds at 10 Hz (2-fold increase, P < 0.001) and 125 Hz (P < 0.05) compared to controls. These sensory changes were not accompanied by any major change in measures of pain perception. We also observed a highly significant reduction (30% compared to controls p < 0.001) in the ability of hearing impaired individual's ability to detect cooling which was not accompanied by changes in warm detection. At least 60% of children with non-syndromic hearing loss showed very significant loss of vibration detection ability (at 10 Hz) compared to age-matched controls. We thus propose that many pathogenic mutations that cause childhood onset deafness may also play a role in the development or functional maintenance of somatic mechanoreceptors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Psychology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 June 2017.
All research outputs
#17,900,930
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#87,688
of 124,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#226,243
of 315,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#3,023
of 4,654 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,087 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,536 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,654 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.