↓ Skip to main content

Neural Influences on Sprint Running

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
29 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
574 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Neural Influences on Sprint Running
Published in
Sports Medicine, November 2012
DOI 10.2165/00007256-200131060-00002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Performance in sprint exercise is determined by the ability to accelerate, the magnitude of maximal velocity and the ability to maintain velocity against the onset of fatigue. These factors are strongly influenced by metabolic and anthropometric components. Improved temporal sequencing of muscle activation and/or improved fast twitch fibre recruitment may contribute to superior sprint performance. Speed of impulse transmission along the motor axon may also have implications on sprint performance. Nerve conduction velocity (NCV) has been shown to increase in response to a period of sprint training. However, it is difficult to determine if increased NCV is likely to contribute to improved sprint performance. An increase in motoneuron excitability, as measured by the Hoffman reflex (H-reflex), has been reported to produce a more powerful muscular contraction, hence maximising motoneuron excitability would be expected to benefit sprint performance. Motoneuron excitability can be raised acutely by an appropriate stimulus with obvious implications for sprint performance. However, at rest H-reflex has been reported to be lower in athletes trained for explosive events compared with endurance-trained athletes. This may be caused by the relatively high, fast twitch fibre percentage and the consequent high activation thresholds of such motor units in power-trained populations. In contrast, stretch reflexes appear to be enhanced in sprint athletes possibly because of increased muscle spindle sensitivity as a result of sprint training. With muscle in a contracted state, however, there is evidence to suggest greater reflex potentiation among both sprint and resistance-trained populations compared with controls. Again this may be indicative of the predominant types of motor units in these populations, but may also mean an enhanced reflex contribution to force production during running in sprint-trained athletes. Fatigue of neural origin both during and following sprint exercise has implications with respect to optimising training frequency and volume. Research suggests athletes are unable to maintain maximal firing frequencies for the full duration of, for example, a 100m sprint. Fatigue after a single training session may also have a neural manifestation with some athletes unable to voluntarily fully activate muscle or experiencing stretch reflex inhibition after heavy training. This may occur in conjunction with muscle damage. Research investigating the neural influences on sprint performance is limited. Further longitudinal research is necessary to improve our understanding of neural factors that contribute to training-induced improvements in sprint performance.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 574 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Brazil 9 2%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 556 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 99 17%
Student > Bachelor 75 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 10%
Researcher 44 8%
Student > Postgraduate 34 6%
Other 121 21%
Unknown 141 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 268 47%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 3%
Engineering 14 2%
Other 43 7%
Unknown 161 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 June 2025.
All research outputs
#1,075,157
of 31,943,232 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#942
of 3,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,354
of 220,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#132
of 923 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,943,232 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.1. 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 220,612 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 923 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.