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 |
Differences in EMG Burst Patterns During Grasping Dexterity Tests and Activities of Daily Living
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fbioe.2018.00068 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jen Rowson, Alaster Yoxall, Victor Gonzalez |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to characterize the muscle activation patterns which underlie the performance of two commonly used grasping patterns and compare the characteristics of such patterns during dexterity tests and activities of daily living. EMG of flexor digitorum and extensor digitorum were monitored from 6 healthy participants as they performed three tasks related to activities of daily living (picking up a coin, drinking from a cup, feeding with a spoon) and three dexterity tests (Variable Dexterity Test-Precision, Variable Dexterity Test-Cylinder, Purdue Pegboard Test). A ten-camera motion capture system was used to simultaneously acquire kinematics of index and middle fingers. Spatiotemporal aspects of the EMG signals were analyzed and compared to metacarpophalangeal joint angle of index and middle fingers. The work has shown that a common rehabilitation test such as the Purdue Pegboard test is a poor representation of the muscle activation patterns for activities of daily living. EMG and joint angle patterns from the Variable Dexterity Tests which has been designed to more accurately reflect a range of ADl's were consistently comparable with tasks requiring precision and cylinder grip, reaffirming the importance of object size and shape when attempting to accurately assess hand function. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 28% |
| Researcher | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 28% |
| Engineering | 7 | 28% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 May 2018.
All research outputs
#18,624,695
of 23,072,295 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#3,456
of 6,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,661
of 330,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
#39
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,072,295 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,761 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.