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 |
Changes in activation timing of knee and ankle extensors during gait are related to changes in heteronymous spinal pathways after stroke
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1743-0003-11-148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joseph-Omer Dyer, Eric Maupas, Sibele de Andrade Melo, Daniel Bourbonnais, Sylvie Nadeau, Robert Forget |
| Abstract |
Extensor synergy is often observed in the paretic leg of stroke patients. Extensor synergy consists of an abnormal stereotyped co-activation of the leg extensors as patients attempt to move. As a component of this synergy, the simultaneous activation of knee and ankle extensors in the paretic leg during stance often affects gait pattern after stroke. The mechanisms involved in extensor synergy are still unclear. The first objective of this study is to compare the co-activation of knee and ankle extensors during the stance phase of gait between stroke and healthy individuals. The second objective is to explore whether this co-activation is related to changes in heteronymous spinal modulations between quadriceps and soleus muscles on the paretic side in post-stroke individuals. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 18% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 7% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 31 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#731
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,517
of 274,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 274,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.