Voluntary rate of torque development is impaired after a voluntary versus tetanic conditioning contraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Both voluntary and evoked conditioning contractions will potentiate muscle twitch contractile properties. The response of a voluntary contraction to each condition type is not well understood but it may be a more functional model than evoked twitch potentiation. METHODS: Baseline measurements from tibialis anterior included: maximal isometric twitch torque and rate of torque development (RTD); maximal evoked 50-Hz torque; and maximal voluntary ballistic RTD. Potentiation was induced by a 10-s voluntary or tetanic contraction (∽78% MVC), followed by 2 twitches and 2 ballistic contractions. RESULTS: Twitch properties (torque and RTD) were potentiated equally after each conditioning contraction. Ballistic RTD was greater post-tetanus (390.2 ± 59.3 Nm/s) than post-voluntary (356.4 ± 69.1 Nm/s), but both were reduced from baseline (422.0 ± 88.9 Nm/s). CONCLUSIONS: Twitch potentiation was similar between conditioning contraction types, but ballistic RTD was lower after post-tetanus than post-voluntary. The results indicate central inhibition or fatigue concurrent with peripheral potentiation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".