MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1737007099 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2009.180968

The response to paired motor cortical stimuli is abolished at a spinal level during human muscle fatigue

2009· article· en· W1737007099 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chris J. McNeil, Peter Martin, Simon C. Gandevia, Janet L. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTranscranial magnetic stimulationMotor cortexStimulus (psychology)Silent periodStimulationBicepsMedicineCorticospinal tractMuscle contractionConditioningNeurosciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During maximal exercise, supraspinal fatigue contributes significantly to the decline in muscle performance but little is known about intracortical inhibition during such contractions. Long-interval inhibition is produced by a conditioning motor cortical stimulus delivered via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) 50-200 ms prior to a second test stimulus. We aimed to delineate changes in this inhibition during a sustained maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Eight subjects performed a 2 min MVC of elbow flexors. Single test and paired (conditioning-test interval of 100 ms) stimuli were delivered via TMS over the motor cortex every 7-8 s throughout the effort and during intermittent MVCs in the recovery period. To determine the role of spinal mechanisms, the protocol was repeated but the TMS test stimulus was replaced by cervicomedullary stimulation which activates the corticospinal tract. TMS motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from biceps brachii. Unconditioned MEPs increased progressively with fatigue, whereas CMEPs increased initially but returned to the control value in the final 40 s of contraction. In contrast, both conditioned MEPs and CMEPs decreased rapidly with fatigue and were virtually abolished within 30 s. In recovery, unconditioned responses required <30 s but conditioned MEPs and CMEPs required 90 s to return to control levels. Thus, long-interval inhibition increased markedly as fatigue progressed. Contrary to expectations, subcortically evoked CMEPs were inhibited as much as MEPs. This new phenomenon was also observed in the first dorsal interosseous muscle. Tested with a high intensity conditioning stimulus during a fatiguing maximal effort, long-interval inhibition of MEPs was increased primarily by spinal rather than motor cortical mechanisms. The spinal mechanisms exposed here may contribute to the development of central fatigue in human muscles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations143
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207