↓ Skip to main content

Are there two forms of isometric muscle action? Results of the experimental study support a distinction between a holding and a pushing isometric muscle function

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 348)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
96 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Are there two forms of isometric muscle action? Results of the experimental study support a distinction between a holding and a pushing isometric muscle function
Published in
BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13102-017-0075-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura V. Schaefer, Frank N. Bittmann

Abstract

In isometric muscle function, there are subjectively two different modes of performance: one can either hold isometrically - thus resist an impacting force - or push isometrically - therefore work against a stable resistance. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not two different isometric muscle actions - the holding vs. pushing one (HIMA vs PIMA) - can be distinguished by objective parameters. Ten subjects performed two different measuring modes at 80% of MVC realized by a special pneumatic system. During HIMA the subject had to resist the defined impacting force of the pneumatic system in an isometric position, whereby the force of the cylinder works in direction of elbow flexion against the subject. During PIMA the subject worked isometrically in direction of elbow extension against a stable position of the system. The signals of pressure, force, acceleration and mechanomyography/-tendography (MMG/MTG) of the elbow extensor (MMGtri/MTGtri) and the abdominal muscle (MMGobl) were recorded and evaluated concerning the duration of maintaining the force level (force endurance) and the characteristics of MMG-/MTG-signals. Statistical group differences comparing HIMA vs. PIMA were estimated using SPSS. Significant differences between HIMA and PIMA were especially apparent regarding the force endurance: During HIMA the subjects showed a decisively shorter time of stable isometric position (19 ± 8 s) in comparison with PIMA (41 ± 24 s; p = .005). In addition, during PIMA the longest isometric plateau amounted to 59.4% of the overall duration time of isometric measuring, during HIMA it lasted 31.6% (p = .000). The frequency of MMG/MTG did not show significant differences. The power in the frequency ranges of 8-15 Hz and 10-29 Hz was significantly higher in the MTGtri performing HIMA compared to PIMA (but not for the MMGs). The amplitude of MMG/MTG did not show any significant difference considering the whole measurement. However, looking only at the last 10% of duration time (exhaustion), the MMGtri showed significantly higher amplitudes during PIMA. The results suggest that under holding isometric conditions muscles exhaust earlier. That means that there are probably two forms of isometric muscle action. We hypothesize two potential reasons for faster yielding during HIMA: (1) earlier metabolic fatigue of the muscle fibers and (2) the complexity of neural control strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Student > Master 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 12 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 33 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 17 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 10 August 2020.
All research outputs
#442,967
of 19,521,967 outputs
Outputs from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#14
of 348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,653
of 279,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,521,967 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 279,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them