↓ Skip to main content

Are There Critical Fatigue Thresholds? Aggregated vs. Individual Data

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 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 Critical Fatigue Thresholds? Aggregated vs. Individual Data
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2016.00376
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daria Neyroud, Bengt Kayser, Nicolas Place

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying task failure from fatiguing physical efforts have been the focus of many studies without reaching consensus. An attractive but debated model explains effort termination with a critical peripheral fatigue threshold. Upon reaching this threshold, feedback from sensory afferents would trigger task disengagement from open-ended tasks or a reduction of exercise intensity of closed-ended tasks. Alternatively, the extant literature also appears compatible with a more global critical threshold of loss of maximal voluntary contraction force. Indeed, maximal voluntary contraction force loss from fatiguing exercise realized at a given intensity appears rather consistent between different studies. However, when looking at individual data, the similar maximal force losses observed between different tasks performed at similar intensities might just be an "artifact" of data aggregation. It would then seem possible that such a difference observed between individual and aggregated data also applies to other models previously proposed to explain task failure from fatiguing physical efforts. We therefore suggest that one should be cautious when trying to infer models that try to explain individual behavior from aggregated data.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 84 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 20%
Researcher 13 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 10%
Student > Master 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 49 56%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 11 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,435,302
of 25,916,093 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#793
of 15,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,323
of 350,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#10
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,916,093 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,741 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 350,388 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.