↓ Skip to main content

The Robust Running Ape: Unraveling the Deep Underpinnings of Coordinated Human Running Proficiency

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
89 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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 Robust Running Ape: Unraveling the Deep Underpinnings of Coordinated Human Running Proficiency
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00892
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Kiely

Abstract

In comparison to other mammals, humans are not especially strong, swift or supple. Nevertheless, despite these apparent physical limitations, we are among Natures most superbly well-adapted endurance runners. Paradoxically, however, notwithstanding this evolutionary-bestowed proficiency, running-related injuries, and Overuse syndromes in particular, are widely pervasive. The term 'coordination' is similarly ubiquitous within contemporary coaching, conditioning, and rehabilitation cultures. Various theoretical models of coordination exist within the academic literature. However, the specific neural and biological underpinnings of 'running coordination,' and the nature of their integration, remain poorly elaborated. Conventionally running is considered a mundane, readily mastered coordination skill. This illusion of coordinative simplicity, however, is founded upon a platform of immense neural and biological complexities. This extensive complexity presents extreme organizational difficulties yet, simultaneously, provides a multiplicity of viable pathways through which the computational and mechanical burden of running can be proficiently dispersed amongst expanded networks of conditioned neural and peripheral tissue collaborators. Learning to adequately harness this available complexity, however, is a painstakingly slowly emerging, practice-driven process, greatly facilitated by innate evolutionary organizing principles serving to constrain otherwise overwhelming complexity to manageable proportions. As we accumulate running experiences persistent plastic remodeling customizes networked neural connectivity and biological tissue properties to best fit our unique neural and architectural idiosyncrasies, and personal histories: thus neural and peripheral tissue plasticity embeds coordination habits. When, however, coordinative processes are compromised-under the integrated influence of fatigue and/or accumulative cycles of injury, overuse, misuse, and disuse-this spectrum of available 'choice' dysfunctionally contracts, and our capacity to safely disperse the mechanical 'stress' of running progressively diminishes. Now the running work burden falls increasingly on reduced populations of collaborating components. Accordingly our capacity to effectively manage, dissipate and accommodate running-imposed stress diminishes, and vulnerability to Overuse syndromes escalates. Awareness of the deep underpinnings of running coordination enhances conceptual clarity, thereby informing training and rehabilitation insights designed to offset the legacy of excessive or progressively accumulating exposure to running-imposed mechanical stress.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 18 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Engineering 5 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#634,120
of 23,228,787 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,280
of 30,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,743
of 317,830 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#39
of 615 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,228,787 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 30,838 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 317,830 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 615 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.