| Title |
Electromyographic responses during time get up and go test in water (wTUG)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-2-217 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio I Cuesta-Vargas, Carlos Cano-Herrera, Danielle Formosa, Brendan Burkett |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to use sEMG to measure the neuromuscular activity during the TUG task in water, and compare this with the responses for the same task on land. Ten healthy subjects [5 males and 5 females [mean ± SD]: age, 22.0 ± 3.1 yr; body mass, 63.9 ± 17.2 kg. A telemetry EMG system was used on the following muscles on the right side of the body: the quadriceps - rectus femoris [RF], long head of the biceps femoris [BF], tibialis anterior [TA], gastrocnemius medialis [GM], soleus [SOL], rectus abdominis [RA] and erector spinae [ES]. Each subject performed the TUG test three times with five minutes recover between trials in water and on dry land. The % MVC was significantly different (p < 0.05) for majority of the muscles tested during the TUG water compared to dry land. % MVC of RF [p = 0.003, t = 4.07]; BF [p = 0.000, t = 6.8]; TA [p = 0.005, t = 5.9]; and SOL [p = 0.048, t = 1.98]; RA [p = 0.007, t = 3.45]; and ES [p = 0.004, t = 3.78]. The muscle activation of the trunk and the lower limb [VM RF, BF, TA, GM and SOL] were lower in water compared to dry land, when performing a TUG test. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 36% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 5 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,906,826
of 22,711,242 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#170
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,705
of 193,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#9
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,242 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,852 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 193,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 90% of its contemporaries.