↓ Skip to main content

Power output and fatigue properties using spatially distributed sequential stimulation in a dynamic knee extension task

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Power output and fatigue properties using spatially distributed sequential stimulation in a dynamic knee extension task
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00421-017-3675-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Laubacher, Anil Efe Aksöz, Robert Riener, Stuart Binder-Macleod, Kenneth J. Hunt

Abstract

The low power output and fatigue resistance during functional electrical stimulation (FES) limits its use for functional applications. The aim of this study was to compare the power output and fatigue properties of spatially distributed sequential stimulation (SDSS) against conventional single electrode stimulation (SES) in an isokinetic knee extension task simulating knee movement during recumbent cycling. M. vastus lateralis and m. vastus medialis of eight able-bodied subjects were stimulated for 6 min on both legs with both setups. In the SES setup, target muscles were each stimulated by a pair of electrodes. In SDSS, four small electrodes replaced the SES active electrodes, but reference electrodes were the same. Torque was measured during knee extension movement by a dynamometer at an angular velocity of 110°/s. Mean power (P mean) was calculated from stimulated extensions for the first 10 extensions, the final 20 extensions and overall. Fatigue is presented as an index, calculated as the decrease with respect to initial power. P mean was significantly higher for SDSS than for SES in the final phase (9.9 ± 4.0 vs. 7.4 ± 4.3 W, p = 0.035) and overall (11.5 ± 4.0 vs. 9.2 ± 4.5 W, p =  0.037). With SDSS, the reduction in P mean was significantly smaller compared to SES (from 14.9 to 9.9 vs. 14.6 to 7.4 W, p = 0.024). The absolute mean pulse width was substantially lower with SDSS (62.5 vs. 90.0 µs). Although less stimulation was applied, SDSS showed a significantly higher mean power output than SES. SDSS also had improved fatigue resistance when compared to conventional stimulation. The SDSS approach may provide substantial performance benefits for cyclical FES applications.

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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Professor 6 8%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 18 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Sports and Recreations 5 7%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 29 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#3,226
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,032
of 326,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#35
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 326,157 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.