↓ Skip to main content

Spinal Cord Excitability and Sprint Performance Are Enhanced by Sensory Stimulation During Cycling

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Spinal Cord Excitability and Sprint Performance Are Enhanced by Sensory Stimulation During Cycling
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00612
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gregory E. P. Pearcey, Steven A. Noble, Bridget Munro, E. Paul Zehr

Abstract

Spinal cord excitability, as assessed by modulation of Hoffmann (H-) reflexes, is reduced with fatiguing isometric contractions. Furthermore, spinal cord excitability is reduced during non-fatiguing arm and leg cycling. Presynaptic inhibition of Ia terminals is believed to contribute to this suppression of spinal cord excitability. Electrical stimulation to cutaneous nerves reduces Ia presynaptic inhibition, which facilitates spinal cord excitability, and this facilitation is present during arm cycling. Although it has been suggested that reducing presynaptic inhibition may prolong fatiguing contractions, it is unknown whether sensory stimulation can alter the effects of fatiguing exercise on performance or spinal cord excitability. Thus, the aim of this experiment was to determine if sensory stimulation can interfere with fatigue-related suppression of spinal cord excitability, and alter fatigue rates during cycling sprints. Thirteen participants randomly performed three experimental sessions that included: unloaded cycling with sensory stimulation (CONTROL + STIM), sprints with sensory stimulation (SPRINT + STIM) and sprints without stimulation (SPRINT). Seven participants also performed a fourth session (CONTROL), which consisted of unloaded cycling. During SPRINT and SPRINT + STIM, participants performed seven, 10 s cycling sprints interleaved with 3 min rest. For CONTROL and CONTROL + STIM, participants performed unloaded cycling for ~30 min. During SPRINT + STIM and CONTROL + STIM, participants received patterned sensory stimulation to nerves of the right foot. H-reflexes and M-waves of the right soleus were evoked by stimulation of the tibial nerve at multiple time points throughout exercise. Sensory stimulation facilitated soleus H-reflexes during unloaded cycling, whereas sprints suppressed soleus H-reflexes. While receiving sensory stimulation, there was less suppression of soleus H-reflexes and slowed reduction in average power output, compared to sprints without stimulation. These results demonstrate that sensory stimulation can substantially mitigate the fatiguing effects of sprints.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 7 19%
Sports and Recreations 6 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 8%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 14 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 19 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,172,600
of 24,846,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#1,010
of 7,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,463
of 451,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#20
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,846,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 451,312 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.