The purpose of this study was to determine optimal stimulation parameters and calculation methods to estimate quadriceps voluntary activation while minimizing participant discomfort. Twelve healthy adults (8 men and 4 women; mean ± SD, age = 36.8 ± 15.6 years, weight = 76.1 ± 12.9 kg, height = 170.2 ± 8.6 cm). Repeated maximal volitional isometric contractions (MVIC) were performed while imposing 4 stimulation combinations (10 or 2 pulses; 400 or 200 V; and variable or standardized current) with the quadriceps in a relaxed state (resting twitch [RT]) and during an MVIC. Quadriceps activation was quantified by calculating the central activation ratio and the percent activation. Discomfort was quantified using the visual analog scale. When comparing calculation methods between the same stimulation parameters, the central activation ratio calculation method produced quadriceps activation values that were significantly greater (p < 0.009) than those derived using the percent activation calculation method. The doublet pulse stimulus produced less discomfort during the RT (p < 0.04) and MVIC (p < 0.001) when compared with all other combinations using a train of stimuli (10 pulses). Correlations for all estimates of quadriceps activation were strong (r = 0.85-0.99, p < 0.001). A doublet pulse stimulus produced discomfort levels that were over 50% lower than a 10-pulse train of stimuli and correlated well (r > 0.88) with activation levels obtained with a 10-pulse train of stimuli. Therefore, the use of a doublet pulse stimulus provides quadriceps activation information equivalent to other methods while minimizing participant discomfort.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 February 2014.
All research outputs
#24,753,774
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#6,176
of 7,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,007
of 374,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research
#88
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,363 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 374,562 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
