↓ Skip to main content

Motor unit recruitment for dynamic tasks: current understanding and future directions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Comparative Physiology B, July 2008
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 (71st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
310 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
Motor unit recruitment for dynamic tasks: current understanding and future directions
Published in
Journal of Comparative Physiology B, July 2008
DOI 10.1007/s00360-008-0289-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma F. Hodson-Tole, James M. Wakeling

Abstract

Skeletal muscle contains many muscle fibres that are functionally grouped into motor units. For any motor task there are many possible combinations of motor units that could be recruited and it has been proposed that a simple rule, the 'size principle', governs the selection of motor units recruited for different contractions. Motor units can be characterised by their different contractile, energetic and fatigue properties and it is important that the selection of motor units recruited for given movements allows units with the appropriate properties to be activated. Here we review what is currently understood about motor unit recruitment patterns, and assess how different recruitment patterns are more or less appropriate for different movement tasks. During natural movements the motor unit recruitment patterns vary (not always holding to the size principle) and it is proposed that motor unit recruitment is likely related to the mechanical function of the muscles. Many factors such as mechanics, sensory feedback, and central control influence recruitment patterns and consequently an integrative approach (rather than reductionist) is required to understand how recruitment is controlled during different movement tasks. Currently, the best way to achieve this is through in vivo studies that relate recruitment to mechanics and behaviour. Various methods for determining motor unit recruitment patterns are discussed, in particular the recent wavelet-analysis approaches that have allowed motor unit recruitment to be assessed during natural movements. Directions for future studies into motor recruitment within and between functional task groups and muscle compartments are suggested.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 299 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 61 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 14%
Student > Master 38 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 5%
Other 46 15%
Unknown 74 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 67 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 10%
Engineering 22 7%
Neuroscience 20 6%
Other 43 14%
Unknown 87 28%
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 15 November 2022.
All research outputs
#6,066,463
of 24,395,432 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#142
of 840 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,518
of 86,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Comparative Physiology B
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,395,432 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 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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 86,352 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.