↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms of residual force enhancement in skeletal muscle: insights from experiments and mathematical models

Overview of attention for article published in Biophysical Reviews, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Mechanisms of residual force enhancement in skeletal muscle: insights from experiments and mathematical models
Published in
Biophysical Reviews, October 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12551-011-0059-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart G. Campbell, Kenneth S. Campbell

Abstract

A skeletal muscle that is stretched while contracting will produce more force at steady state than if it is stretched passively and then stimulated to contract. This phenomenon is known as residual force enhancement and has been widely studied since its description more than sixty years ago. The idea that the mechanical properties of a muscle are governed not just by its present length but also by its length at earlier time points has far reaching implications since muscles stretch and shorten routinely in normal use. In this review, we present the experimental and theoretical advances that have been made toward understanding the mechanisms that underlie residual force enhancement. In the past ten years, experiments and models have focused on essentially three candidate mechanisms for residual force enhancement: (half-) sarcomere inhomogeneity, activity of so-called 'passive' mechanical elements in the sarcomere (titin), and the intrinsic properties of myosin crossbridges. Evidence, both computational and experimental, is accumulating for each of these mechanisms such that a final description of the phenomenon seems attainable in the near future. We conclude that computational models that incorporate more than one putative mechanism may ultimately facilitate reconciliation of the growing number of ideas and experimental data in this field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 20%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 23%
Sports and Recreations 6 17%
Engineering 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 23%
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 23 May 2020.
All research outputs
#15,238,442
of 22,656,971 outputs
Outputs from Biophysical Reviews
#337
of 783 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,964
of 140,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biophysical Reviews
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,656,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 783 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 140,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.