| Title |
Neuromechanical interactions between the limbs during human locomotion: an evolutionary perspective with translation to rehabilitation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Experimental Brain Research, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00221-016-4715-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E.P. Zehr, Trevor S. Barss, Katie Dragert, Alain Frigon, Erin V. Vasudevan, Carlos Haridas, Sandra Hundza, Chelsea Kaupp, Taryn Klarner, Marc Klimstra, Tomoyoshi Komiyama, Pamela M. Loadman, Rinaldo A. Mezzarane, Tsuyoshi Nakajima, Gregory E.P. Pearcey, Yao Sun |
| Abstract |
During bipedal locomotor activities, humans use elements of quadrupedal neuronal limb control. Evolutionary constraints can help inform the historical ancestry for preservation of these core control elements support transfer of the huge body of quadrupedal non-human animal literature to human rehabilitation. In particular, this has translational applications for neurological rehabilitation after neurotrauma where interlimb coordination is lost or compromised. The present state of the field supports including arm activity in addition to leg activity as a component of gait retraining after neurotrauma. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 196 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 13% |
| Researcher | 18 | 9% |
| Professor | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 38 | 19% |
| Unknown | 45 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 41 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 12% |
| Engineering | 22 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 14% |
| Unknown | 51 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#3,180,405
of 24,880,704 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#226
of 3,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,235
of 364,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#6
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,880,704 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,391 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 364,402 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 92% of its contemporaries.