↓ Skip to main content

Masseter Motor Unit Recruitment is Altered in Experimental Jaw Muscle Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Masseter Motor Unit Recruitment is Altered in Experimental Jaw Muscle Pain
Published in
Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine, December 2012
DOI 10.1177/0022034512470832
Pubmed ID
Authors

I. Minami, R. Akhter, I. Albersen, C. Burger, T. Whittle, F. Lobbezoo, C.C. Peck, G.M. Murray

Abstract

Some management strategies for chronic orofacial pain are influenced by models (e.g., Vicious Cycle Theory, Pain Adaptation Model) proposing either excitation or inhibition within a painful muscle. The aim of this study was to determine if experimental painful stimulation of the masseter muscle resulted in only increases or only decreases in masseter activity. Recordings of single-motor-unit (SMU, basic functional unit of muscle) activity were made from the right masseters of 10 asymptomatic participants during biting trials at the same force level and direction under infusion into the masseter of isotonic saline (no-pain condition), and in another block of biting trials on the same day, with 5% hypertonic saline (pain condition). Of the 36 SMUs studied, 2 SMUs exhibited a significant (p < 0.05) increase, 5 a significant decrease, and 14 no significant change in firing rate during pain. Five units were present only during the no-pain block and 10 units during the pain block only. The findings suggest that, rather than only excitation or only inhibition within a painful muscle, a re-organization of activity occurs, with increases and decreases occurring within the painful muscle. This suggests the need to re-assess management strategies based on models that propose uniform effects of pain on motor activity.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hong Kong 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 50%
Neuroscience 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine
#2,844
of 3,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,173
of 286,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine
#21
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 286,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.