↓ Skip to main content

Bilateral Deficit in Explosive Force Production Is Not Caused by Changes in Agonist Neural Drive

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Bilateral Deficit in Explosive Force Production Is Not Caused by Changes in Agonist Neural Drive
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0057549
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew W. Buckthorpe, Matthew T. G. Pain, Jonathan P. Folland

Abstract

Bilateral deficit (BLD) describes the phenomenon of a reduction in performance during synchronous bilateral (BL) movements when compared to the sum of identical unilateral (UL) movements. Despite a large body of research investigating BLD of maximal voluntary force (MVF) there exist a paucity of research examining the BLD for explosive strength. Therefore, this study investigated the BLD in voluntary and electrically-evoked explosive isometric contractions of the knee extensors and assessed agonist and antagonist neuromuscular activation and measurement artefacts as potential mechanisms. Thirteen healthy untrained males performed a series of maximum and explosive voluntary contractions bilaterally (BL) and unilaterally (UL). UL and BL evoked twitch and octet contractions were also elicited. Two separate load cells were used to measure MVF and explosive force at 50, 100 and 150 ms after force onset. Surface EMG amplitude was measured from three superficial agonists and an antagonist. Rate of force development (RFD) and EMG were reported over consecutive 50 ms periods (0-50, 50-100 and 100-150 ms). Performance during UL contractions was compared to combined BL performance to measure BLD. Single limb performance during the BL contractions was assessed and potential measurement artefacts, including synchronisation of force onset from the two limbs, controlled for. MVF showed no BLD (P = 0.551), but there was a BLD for explosive force at 100 ms (11.2%, P = 0.007). There was a BLD in RFD 50-100 ms (14.9%, P = 0.004), but not for the other periods. Interestingly, there was a BLD in evoked force measures (6.3-9.0%, P<0.001). There was no difference in agonist or antagonist EMG for any condition (P≥0.233). Measurement artefacts contributed minimally to the observed BLD. The BLD in volitional explosive force found here could not be explained by measurement issues, or agonist and antagonist neuromuscular activation. The BLD in voluntary and evoked explosive force might indicate insufficient stabiliser muscle activation during BL explosive contractions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 97 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 13%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 16 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 38 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,368,274
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#87,622
of 193,796 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,340
of 194,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,097
of 5,400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,796 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 194,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,400 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 61% of its contemporaries.