↓ Skip to main content

American Physiological Society

Anatomy and physiology of phrenic afferent neurons

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurophysiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
Title
Anatomy and physiology of phrenic afferent neurons
Published in
Journal of Neurophysiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1152/jn.00484.2017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jayakrishnan Nair, Kristi A Streeter, Sara M F Turner, Michael D Sunshine, Donald C Bolser, Emily J Fox, Paul W Davenport, David D Fuller

Abstract

Large diameter myelinated phrenic afferents discharge in phase with diaphragm contraction and smaller diameter fibers discharge across the respiratory cycle. In this article, we review the phrenic afferent literature and highlight areas in need of further study. We conclude that 1) activation of both myelinated and non-myelinated phrenic sensory afferents can influence respiratory motor output on a breath-by-breath basis; 2) the relative impact of phrenic afferents substantially increases with diaphragm work and fatigue; 3) activation of phrenic afferents has a powerful impact on sympathetic motor outflow, and 4) phrenic afferents contribute to diaphragm somatosensation and the conscious perception of breathing. Much remains to be learned regarding the spinal and supraspinal distribution and synaptic contacts of myelinated and non-myelinated phrenic afferents. Similarly, very little is known regarding the potential role of phrenic afferent neurons in triggering or modulating expression of respiratory neuroplasticity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Master 8 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 21%
Neuroscience 10 18%
Engineering 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurophysiology
#4,576
of 8,424 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,303
of 325,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurophysiology
#59
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,424 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 325,032 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.