↓ Skip to main content

Regional heterogeneity in muscle fiber strain: the role of fiber architecture

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Regional heterogeneity in muscle fiber strain: the role of fiber architecture
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00303
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Azizi, Amber R. Deslauriers

Abstract

The force, mechanical work and power produced by muscle fibers are profoundly affected by the length changes they undergo during a contraction. These length changes are in turn affected by the spatial orientation of muscle fibers within a muscle (fiber architecture). Therefore any heterogeneity in fiber architecture within a single muscle has the potential to cause spatial variation in fiber strain. Here we examine how the architectural variation within a pennate muscle and within a fusiform muscle can result in regional fiber strain heterogeneity. We combine simple geometric models with empirical measures of fiber strain to better understand the effect of architecture on fiber strain heterogeneity. We show that variation in pennation angle throughout a muscle can result in differences in fiber strain with higher strains being observed at lower angles of pennation. We also show that in fusiform muscles, the outer/superficial fibers of the muscle experience lower strains than central fibers. These results show that regional variation in mechanical output of muscle fibers can arise solely from architectural features of the muscle without the presence of any spatial variation in motor recruitment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 27%
Student > Master 11 18%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 29%
Engineering 12 19%
Sports and Recreations 9 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 May 2015.
All research outputs
#12,707,910
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,897
of 13,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,105
of 231,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#28
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 231,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.