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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Skiing efficiency versus performance in double-poling ergometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1080/10255842.2011.648376 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
L. Joakim Holmberg, Marie Lund Ohlsson, Matej Supej, Hans-Christer Holmberg |
| Abstract |
This study is on how leg utilisation may affect skiing efficiency and performance in double-poling ergometry. Three experiments were conducted, each with a different style of the double-poling technique: traditional with small knee range-of-motion and fixed heels (TRAD); modern with large knee range-of-motion and fixed heels (MOD1) and modern with large knee range-of-motion and free heels (MOD2). For each style, motion data were extracted with automatic marker recognition of reflective markers and applied to a 3D full-body musculoskeletal simulation model. Skiing efficiency (skiing work divided by metabolic muscle work) and performance (forward impulse) were computed from the simulation output. Skiing efficiency was 4.5%, 4.1% and 4.1% for TRAD, MOD1 and MOD2, respectively. Performance was 111, 143 and 149 Ns for TRAD, MOD1 and MOD2, respectively. Thus, higher lower body utilisation increased the performance but decreased the skiing efficiency. These results demonstrate the potential of musculoskeletal simulations for skiing efficiency estimations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Turkey | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 8 | 27% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
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 14 December 2014.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
#264
of 1,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,506
of 253,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 253,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.