↓ Skip to main content

Between-muscle differences in the adaptation to experimental pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Between-muscle differences in the adaptation to experimental pain
Published in
Journal of Applied Physiology, September 2014
DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00561.2014
Pubmed ID
Authors

François Hug, Paul W Hodges, Wolbert van den Hoorn, Kylie Tucker

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether muscle stress (force per unit area) can be redistributed between individual heads of the quadriceps muscle when pain is induced into one of these heads. Elastography was used to measure muscle shear elastic modulus (an index of muscle stress). Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM), and rectus femoris (RF). In experiment I (n = 20), participants matched a knee extension force, and thus any reduction of stress within the painful muscle would require compensation by other muscles. In experiment II (n = 13), participants matched VL EMG amplitude and were free to vary external force such that intermuscle compensation would be unnecessary to maintain the experimental task. In experiments I and II, pain was induced by injection of hypertonic saline into VM or RF. Experiment III aimed to establish whether voluntary drive to the individual muscles could be controlled independently. Participants (n = 13) were asked to voluntarily reduce activation of VM or RF while maintaining knee extension force. During VM pain, there was no change in shear elastic modulus (experiments I and II) or EMG amplitude of VM (experiment II). In contrast, RF pain was associated with a reduction in RF elastic modulus (experiments I and II: -8 to -17%) and EMG amplitude (experiment II). Participants could voluntarily reduce EMG amplitude of RF (-26%; P = 0.003) but not VM (experiment III). These results highlight between-muscle differences in adaptation to pain that might be explained by their function (monoarticular vs. biarticular) and/or the neurophysiological constraints associated to their activation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 93 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 13%
Psychology 6 6%
Neuroscience 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 32 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 24 September 2014.
All research outputs
#14,599,900
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Physiology
#6,664
of 9,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,510
of 250,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Physiology
#51
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 250,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.