↓ Skip to main content

Motor unit recruitment during neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a critical appraisal

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
280 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
483 Mendeley
Title
Motor unit recruitment during neuromuscular electrical stimulation: a critical appraisal
Published in
European Journal of Applied Physiology, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00421-011-2128-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Scott Bickel, Chris M. Gregory, Jesse C. Dean

Abstract

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is commonly used in clinical settings to activate skeletal muscle in an effort to mimic voluntary contractions and enhance the rehabilitation of human skeletal muscles. It is also used as a tool in research to assess muscle performance and/or neuromuscular activation levels. However, there are fundamental differences between voluntary- and artificial-activation of motor units that need to be appreciated before NMES protocol design can be most effective. The unique effects of NMES have been attributed to several mechanisms, most notably, a reversal of the voluntary recruitment pattern that is known to occur during voluntary muscle contractions. This review outlines the assertion that electrical stimulation recruits motor units in a nonselective, spatially fixed, and temporally synchronous pattern. Additionally, it synthesizes the evidence that supports the contention that this recruitment pattern contributes to increased muscle fatigue when compared with voluntary actions and provides some commentary on the parameters of electrical stimulation as well as emerging technologies being developed to facilitate NMES implementation. A greater understanding of how electrical stimulation recruits motor units, as well as the benefits and limitations of its use, is highly relevant when using this tool for testing and training in rehabilitation, exercise, and/or research.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 483 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 472 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 92 19%
Student > Master 73 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 69 14%
Researcher 49 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 7%
Other 68 14%
Unknown 100 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 81 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 69 14%
Sports and Recreations 64 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 7%
Other 68 14%
Unknown 123 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#1,488
of 4,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,714
of 134,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Applied Physiology
#25
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 134,833 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.