↓ Skip to main content

Neural Activation During Submaximal Contractions Seems More Reflective of Neuromuscular Ageing than Maximal Voluntary Activation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Neural Activation During Submaximal Contractions Seems More Reflective of Neuromuscular Ageing than Maximal Voluntary Activation
Published in
Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, February 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00019
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gil Scaglioni, Marco V. Narici, Alain Martin

Abstract

This study aimed at testing the hypothesis that differences in neural activation strategy during submaximal but not maximal plantarflexions exist between young and older men. Eleven young men (YM, 26 ± 4 years) and thirteen old men (OM, 76 ± 3 years) volunteered for the investigation. Maximal voluntary torque (MVT) was 38.2%, lower (p < 0.001) in OM than in YM, while voluntary activation was equivalent (~97%). The relationship between the interpolated twitch-torque and the voluntary torque (IT-VT relationship) was composite (curvilinear + exponential) for both age-groups. However, the OM showed accentuated concavity, as attested by the occurrence of the deviation from linearity at a lower contraction intensity (OM: 54.9 vs. YM: 71.9% MVT). In conclusion, ageing does not affect the capacity to fully activate the plantar flexors during maximal performances, but it alters the activation pattern for submaximal levels of effort. The greater age-related concavity of the IT-VT relationship suggests that, during submaximal contractions, OM need to reach a level of activation higher than YM to develop an equivalent relative torque.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Master 10 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 11%
Professor 4 9%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 13 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 11 23%
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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,310,658
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#4,307
of 4,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,062
of 298,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience
#72
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 298,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.