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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Size-Related Changes in Foot Impact Mechanics in Hoofed Mammals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0054784 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharon Elaine Warner, Phillip Pickering, Olga Panagiotopoulou, Thilo Pfau, Lei Ren, John Richard Hutchinson |
| Abstract |
Foot-ground impact is mechanically challenging for all animals, but how do large animals mitigate increased mass during foot impact? We hypothesized that impact force amplitude scales according to isometry in animals of increasing size through allometric scaling of related impact parameters. To test this, we measured limb kinetics and kinematics in 11 species of hoofed mammals ranging from 18-3157 kg body mass. We found impact force amplitude to be maintained proportional to size in hoofed mammals, but that other features of foot impact exhibit differential scaling patterns depending on the limb; forelimb parameters typically exhibit higher intercepts with lower scaling exponents than hind limb parameters. Our explorations of the size-related consequences of foot impact advance understanding of how body size influences limb morphology and function, foot design and locomotor behaviour. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 45% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 9% |
| Argentina | 1 | 9% |
| United States | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 11 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 34% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 8 | 13% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Engineering | 3 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 06 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,873,116
of 25,587,485 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#22,852
of 223,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,525
of 291,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#510
of 5,039 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,587,485 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 291,702 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,039 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.