↓ Skip to main content

Acute effects of psychological relaxation techniques between two physical tasks

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Sports Sciences, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 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
Acute effects of psychological relaxation techniques between two physical tasks
Published in
Journal of Sports Sciences, March 2016
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2016.1161208
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Pelka, S. Kölling, A. Ferrauti, T. Meyer, M. Pfeiffer, M. Kellmann

Abstract

The concept of recovery strategies includes various ways to achieve a state of well-being, prevent underrecovery syndromes from occurring and re-establish pre-performance states. A systematic application of individualised relaxation techniques is one of those. Following a counterbalanced cross-over design, 27 sport science students (age 25.22 ± 1.08 years; sports participation 8.08 ± 3.92 h/week) were randomly assigned to series of progressive muscle relaxation, systematic breathing, power nap, yoga, and a control condition. Once a week, over the course of five weeks, their repeated sprint ability was tested. Tests (6 sprints of 4 s each with 20 s breaks between them) were executed on a non-motorised treadmill twice during that day intermitted by 25 min breaks. RM-ANOVA revealed significant interaction effects between the relaxation conditions and the two sprint sessions with regard to average maximum speed over all six sprints, F(4,96) = 4.06, P = 0.004, [Formula: see text] = 0.15. Post-hoc tests indicated that after systematic breathing interventions, F(1,24) = 5.02, P = 0.033, [Formula: see text] = 0.18, participants performed significantly better compared to control sessions. As the focus of this study lied on basic mechanisms of relaxation techniques in sports, this randomised controlled trial provides us with distinct knowledge on their effects, i.e., systematic breathing led to better performances, and therefore, seems to be a suited relaxation method during high-intensity training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 292 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Bachelor 46 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 10%
Researcher 18 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 4%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 102 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 63 22%
Psychology 29 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 8%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 114 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,536,751
of 24,149,630 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Sports Sciences
#1,094
of 3,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,867
of 304,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Sports Sciences
#48
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,149,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 304,097 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 65% of its contemporaries.