↓ Skip to main content

Muscle residual force enhancement: a brief review

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Muscle residual force enhancement: a brief review
Published in
Clinics, January 2013
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2013(02)r01
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fábio Carderelli Minozzo, Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira

Abstract

Muscle residual force enhancement has been observed in different muscle preparations for more than half a century. Nonetheless, its mechanism remains unclear; to date, there are three generally accepted hypotheses: 1) sarcomere length non-uniformity, 2) engagement of passive elements, and 3) an increased number of cross-bridges. The first hypothesis uses sarcomere non-homogeneity and instability to explain how "weak" sarcomeres would convey the higher tension generated by an enhanced overlap from "stronger" sarcomeres, allowing the whole system to produce higher forces than predicted by the force-length relationship; non-uniformity provides theoretical support for a large amount of the experimental data. The second hypothesis suggests that passive elements within the sarcomeres (i.e., titin) could gain strain upon calcium activation followed by stretch. Finally, the third hypothesis suggests that muscle stretch after activation would alter cross-bridge kinetics to increase the number of attached cross-bridges. Presently, we cannot completely rule out any of the three hypotheses. Different experimental results suggest that the mechanisms on which these three hypotheses are based could all coexist.

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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Turkey 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 76 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 20%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Professor 10 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 20 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 14%
Engineering 11 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 14 17%
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 10 March 2013.
All research outputs
#16,580,596
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#622
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,959
of 289,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#19
of 41 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 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 289,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 53% of its contemporaries.