↓ Skip to main content

The effect of oral motor activity on the athletic performance of professional golfers

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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 effect of oral motor activity on the athletic performance of professional golfers
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00750
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Ringhof, Daniel Hellmann, Florian Meier, Eike Etz, Hans J. Schindler, Thorsten Stein

Abstract

Human motor control is based on complex sensorimotor processes. Recent research has shown that neuromuscular activity of the craniomandibular system (CMS) might affect human motor control. In particular, improvements in postural stability and muscle strength have been observed as a result of voluntary jaw clenching. Potential benefits of jaw aligning appliances on muscle strength and golf performance have also been described. These reports are highly contradictory, however, and the oral motor task performed is often unclear. The purpose of our study was, therefore, to investigate the effect of submaximum biting on golf performance via shot precision and shot length over three different distances. Participants were 14 male professional golfers - seven with sleep bruxism and seven without - randomly performing golf shots over 60m, 160m, or driving distance while either biting on an oral splint or biting on their teeth; habitual jaw position served as the control condition. Statistical analysis revealed that oral motor activity did not systematically affect golf performance in respect of shot precision or shot length for 60m, 160 m, or driving distance. These findings were reinforced by impact variables such as club head speed and ball speed, which were also not indicative of significant effects. The results thus showed that the strength improvements and stabilizing effects described previously are, apparently, not transferable to such coordination-demanding sports as golf. This could be due to the divergent motor demands associated with postural control and muscle strength on the one hand and the complex coordination of a golf swing on the other. Interestingly, subjects without sleep bruxism performed significantly better at the short distance (60 m) than those with bruxism. Because of the multifactorial etiology of parafunctional CMS activity, conclusions about the need for dental treatment to improve sports performance are, however, completely unwarranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 38%
Sports and Recreations 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,435,801
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#13,327
of 29,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,200
of 267,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#305
of 533 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 267,785 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 533 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.