↓ Skip to main content

A Muscle’s Force Depends on the Recruitment Patterns of Its Fibers

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Biomedical Engineering, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
A Muscle’s Force Depends on the Recruitment Patterns of Its Fibers
Published in
Annals of Biomedical Engineering, February 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10439-012-0531-6
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Biomechanical models of whole muscles commonly used in simulations of musculoskeletal function and movement typically assume that the muscle generates force as a scaled-up muscle fiber. However, muscles are comprised of motor units that have different intrinsic properties and that can be activated at different times. This study tested whether a muscle model comprised of motor units that could be independently activated resulted in more accurate predictions of force than traditional Hill-type models. Forces predicted by the models were evaluated by direct comparison with the muscle forces measured in situ from the gastrocnemii in goats. The muscle was stimulated tetanically at a range of frequencies, muscle fiber strains were measured using sonomicrometry, and the activation patterns of the different types of motor unit were calculated from electromyographic recordings. Activation patterns were input into five different muscle models. Four models were traditional Hill-type models with different intrinsic speeds and fiber-type properties. The fifth model incorporated differential groups of fast and slow motor units. For all goats, muscles and stimulation frequencies the differential model resulted in the best predictions of muscle force. The in situ muscle output was shown to depend on the recruitment of different motor units within the muscle.

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Iceland 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 149 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 17%
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 14%
Professor 13 8%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 32 21%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 40 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 16%
Sports and Recreations 15 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 6%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 41 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

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 18 February 2013.
All research outputs
#18,331,394
of 26,848,287 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#2,219
of 2,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,854
of 171,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Biomedical Engineering
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,848,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 171,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.