↓ Skip to main content

The Influence of External Forces on Wrist Proprioception

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

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
The Influence of External Forces on Wrist Proprioception
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Marini, Sara Contu, Chris W. Antuvan, Pietro Morasso, Lorenzo Masia

Abstract

Proprioception combines information from cutaneous, joint, tendon, and muscle receptors for maintaining a reliable internal body image. However, it is still a matter of debate, in both neurophysiology and psychology, to what extent such body image is modified or distorted by a changing haptic environment. In particular, what is worth investigating is the contribution of external forces on our perception of body and joint configuration. The proprioceptive acuity of fifteen young participants was tested with a Joint Position Matching (JPM) task, performed with the dominant wrist under five different external forces, in order to understand to what extent they affect proprioceptive acuity. Results show that accuracy and precision in target matching do not change in a significant manner as a function of the loading condition, suggesting that the multi-sensory integration process is indeed capable of discriminating different sub-modalities of proprioception, namely the joint position sense and the sense of force. Furthermore, results indicate a preference for target undershooting when movements are performed in a viscous or high resistive force field, rather than passive or null fields in which subjects did not show any predominance for under/over estimation of their position.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 7 12%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 15 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 9%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 20 34%
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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,687,628
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,334
of 7,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,314
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#108
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,264 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.