↓ Skip to main content

Scaling of work and power in a locomotor muscle of a frog

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology B, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Scaling of work and power in a locomotor muscle of a frog
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology B, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00360-018-1148-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. P. Olberding, S. M. Deban

Abstract

Muscle work and power are important determinants of movement performance in animals. How these muscle properties scale determines, in part, the scaling of performance during movements, such as jump height or distance. Muscle-mass-specific work is predicted to remain constant across a range of scales, assuming geometric similarity, while muscle-mass-specific power is expected to decrease with increasing scale. We tested these predictions by examining muscle morphology and contractile properties of plantaris muscles from frogs ranging in mass from 1.28 to 20.60 g. Scaling of muscle work and power was examined using both linear regression on log10-transformed data (LR) and non-linear regressions on untransformed data (NLR). Results depended on the method of regression not because of large changes in scaling slopes, but because of changing levels of statistical significance using corrections for multiple tests, demonstrating the importance of careful consideration of statistical methods when analyzing patterns of scaling. In LR, muscle-mass-specific work decreased with increasing scale, but an accompanying positive allometry of muscle mass predicts constant movement performance at all scales. These relationships were non-significant in NLR, though scaling with geometric similarity also predicts constant jump performance across scales, because of proportional increases in available muscle energy and body mass. Both intrinsic shortening velocity and muscle-mass-specific power were positively allometric in both types of analysis. Nonetheless, scale accounts for little variation in contractile properties overall over the range examined, indicating that other sources of intraspecific variation may be more important in determining muscle performance and its effects on movement.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 44%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 33%
Engineering 2 22%
Sports and Recreations 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%
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 22 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,584,772
of 24,395,432 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#533
of 840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,498
of 334,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,395,432 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 840 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 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 334,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.