↓ Skip to main content

Do Differences in Levels, Types, and Duration of Muscle Contraction Have an Effect on the Degree of Post-exercise Depression?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Do Differences in Levels, Types, and Duration of Muscle Contraction Have an Effect on the Degree of Post-exercise Depression?
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, April 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2016.00159
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shota Miyaguchi, Sho Kojima, Hikari Kirimoto, Hiroyuki Tamaki, Hideaki Onishi

Abstract

We conducted two experiments to determine how differences in muscle contraction levels, muscle contraction types, and movement duration affect degree of post-exercise depression (PED) after non-exhaustive, repetitive finger movement. Twelve healthy participants performed repetitive abduction movements of the right index finger at 2 Hz. In experiment 1, we examined the effects of muscle contraction levels at 10, 20, and 30% maximum voluntary contraction and the effects of muscle contraction types at isotonic and isometric contraction. In experiment 2, we examined the effects of movement duration at 2 and 6 min. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle before movement tasks and 1-10 min after movement tasks. MEP amplitudes after isotonic contraction tasks were significantly smaller than those after isometric contraction tasks and decreased with increasing contraction levels, but were independent of movement duration. This study demonstrated that the degree of PED after non-exhaustive repetitive finger movement depended on muscle contraction levels and types. Thus, the degree of PED may depend on the levels of activity in the motor cortex during a movement task. This knowledge will aid in the design of rehabilitation protocols.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Master 3 15%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 15%
Neuroscience 3 15%
Sports and Recreations 2 10%
Psychology 2 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 6 30%
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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,799,386
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,716
of 7,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,075
of 299,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#146
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 299,065 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.