↓ Skip to main content

A Bout of High Intensity Interval Training Lengthened Nerve Conduction Latency to the Non-exercised Affected Limb in Chronic Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
A Bout of High Intensity Interval Training Lengthened Nerve Conduction Latency to the Non-exercised Affected Limb in Chronic Stroke
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00827
Pubmed ID
Authors

Beraki Abraha, Arthur R. Chaves, Liam P. Kelly, Elizabeth M. Wallack, Katie P. Wadden, Jason McCarthy, Michelle Ploughman

Abstract

Objective: Evaluate intensity-dependent effects of a single bout of high intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to moderate intensity constant-load exercise (MICE) on corticospinal excitability (CSE) and effects on upper limb performance in chronic stroke. Design: Randomized cross-over trial. Setting: Research laboratory in a tertiary rehabilitation hospital. Participants: Convenience sample of 12 chronic stroke survivors. Outcome measures: Bilateral CSE measures of intracortical inhibition and facilitation, motor thresholds, and motor evoked potential (MEP) latency using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Upper limb functional measures of dexterity (Box and Blocks Test) and strength (pinch and grip strength). Results: Twelve (10 males; 62.50 ± 9.0 years old) chronic stroke (26.70 ± 23.0 months) survivors with moderate level of residual impairment participated. MEP latency from the ipsilesional hemisphere was lengthened after HIIT (pre: 24.27 ± 1.8 ms, and post: 25.04 ± 1.8 ms, p = 0.01) but not MICE (pre: 25.49 ± 1.10 ms, and post: 25.28 ± 1.0 ms, p = 0.44). There were no significant changes in motor thresholds, intracortical inhibition or facilitation. Pinch strength of the affected hand decreased after MICE (pre: 8.96 ± 1.9 kg vs. post: 8.40 ± 2.0 kg, p = 0.02) but not after HIIT (pre: 8.83 ± 2.0 kg vs. post: 8.65 ± 2.2 kg, p = 0.29). Regardless of type of aerobic exercise, higher total energy expenditure was associated with greater increases in pinch strength in the affected hand after exercise (R2 = 0.31, p = 0.04) and decreases in pinch strength of the less affected hand (R2 = 0.26 p = 0.02). Conclusion: A single bout of HIIT resulted in lengthened nerve conduction latency in the affected hand that was not engaged in the exercise. Longer latency could be related to the cross-over effects of fatiguing exercise or to reduced hand spasticity. Somewhat counterintuitively, pinch strength of the affected hand decreased after MICE but not HIIT. Regardless of the structure of exercise, higher energy expended was associated with pinch strength gains in the affected hand and strength losses in the less affected hand. Since aerobic exercise has acute effects on MEP latency and hand strength, it could be paired with upper limb training to potentiate beneficial effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 131 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 45 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 21%
Sports and Recreations 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Neuroscience 12 9%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 51 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,162,577
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#2,818
of 13,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,354
of 327,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#156
of 509 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,838 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 327,941 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 509 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 68% of its contemporaries.