↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Relevance of deprivation studies in understanding rapid eye movement sleep

Overview of attention for article published in Nature and science of sleep, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Relevance of deprivation studies in understanding rapid eye movement sleep
Published in
Nature and science of sleep, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/nss.s140621
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachna Mehta, Shafa Khan, Birendra N Mallick

Abstract

Rapid eye movement sleep (REMS) is a unique phenomenon essential for maintaining normal physiological processes and is expressed at least in species higher in the evolution. The basic scaffold of the neuronal network responsible for REMS regulation is present in the brainstem, which may be directly or indirectly influenced by most other physiological processes. It is regulated by the neurons in the brainstem. Various manipulations including chemical, elec-trophysiological, lesion, stimulation, behavioral, ontogenic and deprivation studies have been designed to understand REMS genesis, maintenance, physiology and functional significance. Although each of these methods has its significance and limitations, deprivation studies have contributed significantly to the overall understanding of REMS. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of various methods used for REMS deprivation (REMSD) to understand neural regulation and physiological significance of REMS. Among the deprivation strategies, the flowerpot method is by far the method of choice because it is simple and convenient, exploits physiological parameter (muscle atonia) for REMSD and allows conducting adequate controls to overcome experimental limitations as well as to rule out nonspecific effects. Notwithstanding, a major criticism that the flowerpot method faces is that of perceived stress experienced by the experimental animals. Nevertheless, we conclude that like most methods, particularly for in vivo behavioral studies, in spite of a few limitations, given the advantages described above, the flowerpot method is the best method of choice for REMSD studies.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Master 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 5 19%
Psychology 3 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 44%
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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Nature and science of sleep
#560
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#298,886
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature and science of sleep
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.