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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Maximal Voluntary Activation of the Elbow Flexors Is under Predicted by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Compared to Motor Point Stimulation Prior to and Following Muscle Fatigue
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Edward W. J. Cadigan, Brandon W. Collins, Devin T. G. Philpott, Garreth Kippenhuck, Mitchell Brenton, Duane C. Button |
| Abstract |
Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and motor point stimulation have been used to determine voluntary activation (VA). However, very few studies have directly compared the two stimulation techniques for assessing VA of the elbow flexors. The purpose of this study was to compare TMS and motor point stimulation for assessing VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Participants performed a fatigue protocol that included twelve, 15 s isometric elbow flexor contractions. Participants completed a set of isometric elbow flexion contractions at 100, 75, 50, and 25% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) prior to and following fatigue contractions 3, 6, 9, and 12 and 5 and 10 min post-fatigue. Force and EMG of the bicep and triceps brachii were measured for each contraction. Force responses to TMS and motor point stimulation and EMG responses to TMS (motor evoked potentials, MEPs) and Erb's point stimulation (maximal M-waves, Mmax) were also recorded. VA was estimated using the equation: VA% = (1-SITforce/PTforce) × 100. The resting twitch was measured directly for motor point stimulation and estimated for both motor point stimulation and TMS by extrapolation of the linear regression between the superimposed twitch force and voluntary force. MVC force, potentiated twitch force and VA significantly (p < 0.05) decreased throughout the elbow flexor fatigue protocol and partially recovered 10 min post fatigue. VA was significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated when using TMS compared to motor point stimulation in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Motor point stimulation compared to TMS superimposed twitch forces were significantly (p < 0.05) higher at 50% MVC but similar at 75 and 100% MVC. The linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force significantly (p < 0.05) decreased with fatigue. There was no change in triceps/biceps electromyography, biceps/triceps MEP amplitudes, or bicep MEP amplitudes throughout the fatigue protocol at 100% MVC. In conclusion, motor point stimulation as opposed to TMS led to a higher estimation of VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. The decreased linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force led to an underestimation of the estimated resting twitch force and thus, a reduced VA. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 14 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
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 21 September 2017.
All research outputs
#13,876,200
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#4,881
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,781
of 318,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#122
of 300 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 318,391 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 300 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.