↓ Skip to main content

Teeth clenching reduces arm abduction force

Overview of attention for article published in Experimental Brain Research, April 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Teeth clenching reduces arm abduction force
Published in
Experimental Brain Research, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00221-014-3919-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hajime Sato, Tsutomu Kawano, Mitsuru Saito, Hiroki Toyoda, Yoshinobu Maeda, Kemal Sitki Türker, Youngnam Kang

Abstract

It has been reported that the 90° arm abduction force counteracting external adduction loads appeared to be smaller under teeth clenching condition than under non-clenching condition. To elucidate the physiological mechanism underlying the possible inhibitory effect of teeth clenching on the arm abduction, we have attempted to quantify the difference in the force induced against the fast and slow ramp load between the arm abductions under teeth non-clenching and clenching conditions. When the load of adduction moment was linearly increased, the abductor force increased to a maximal isometric contraction force (MICF) and further increased to a maximal eccentric contraction force (MECF) with forced adduction. The MICF measured under teeth clenching was significantly lower than that under non-clenching, despite no significant difference in the MECF between the two conditions. The reduction in MICF caused by teeth clenching was enhanced by increasing the velocity of the load. These results suggest that clenching inhibits abduction force only during isometric contraction phase. The invariability of MECF would indicate the lack of involvement of fatigue in such inhibitory effects of clenching. To discover the source of the inhibition, we have examined the effects of teeth clenching on the stretch reflex in the deltoid muscle. The stretch reflex of deltoid muscles was inhibited during clenching, contrary to what was expected from the Jendrassik maneuver. Taken together, our results suggest that the teeth clenching reduced the MICF by depressing the recruitment of deltoid motoneurones presumably via the presynaptic inhibition of spindle afferent inputs onto those motoneurones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Sports and Recreations 3 9%
Neuroscience 3 9%
Engineering 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 21%
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 April 2014.
All research outputs
#14,651,224
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Experimental Brain Research
#1,896
of 3,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,152
of 225,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Experimental Brain Research
#25
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,220 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 225,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.