↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Passive Finger Movement on Cortical Excitability

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
15 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
Effects of Passive Finger Movement on Cortical Excitability
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00216
Pubmed ID
Authors

Masaki Nakagawa, Ryoki Sasaki, Shota Tsuiki, Shota Miyaguchi, Sho Kojima, Kei Saito, Yasuto Inukai, Hideaki Onishi

Abstract

This study examined the effects of joint angle and passive movement direction on corticospinal excitability. The subjects were 14 healthy adults from whom consent could be obtained. We performed two experiments. In Experiment 1, we measured motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, F-wave and M-wave at 0° and 20° adduction during adduction or abduction movement, in the range of movement from 10° abduction to 30° adduction. In Experiment 2, MEPs were measured at static 0° and 20° adduction during passive adduction from 10° adduction to 30° adduction and static 20° adduction. MEP, F-waves and M-waves were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. Experiment 1 revealed significantly increased MEP amplitude at 0° during passive adduction compared to static 0° (p < 0.01). No other significant differences in MEP, M-wave and F-wave parameters were observed. In Experiment 2, MEP amplitude was significantly higher at 20° adduction during passive adduction compared with static 0° (p < 0.01). Based on these findings, it appears that fluctuations in MEP amplitude values during passive movement are not influenced by joint angle, but rather it is possible that it is due to intracortical afferent facilitation (AF) dependent on afferent input due to the start of movement and interstimulus interval (ISI) of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 33%
Professor 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 4 27%
Psychology 3 20%
Sports and Recreations 2 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 3 20%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,386,355
of 23,039,416 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#4,599
of 7,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,698
of 311,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#140
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,039,416 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,197 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 311,038 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.