Muscle Activation Is Enhanced With Multi- and Uni-Articular Bilateral Versus Unilateral Contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ten resistance trained (RT) and 6 non-resistance trained (NRT) subjects were used to determine differences in quadriceps activation between isometric single and double knee extensions and squat contractions. Greater inactivation, as measured by the interpolated twitch technique, was recorded with single (RT: 16.5%, NRT: 17.6%) than double leg extensions (RT: 8.4%, NRT: 13.4%) or squats (RT: 4.03%, NRT: 1.7%). There was no significant difference between the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) force of the dominant leg during single and double leg extensions. However, in NRT subjects, the contralateral or non-dominant leg during double leg extensions exhibited significantly less force than the dominant leg (715.9 vs 566.9 N). This deficit may be due to a lesser reliance on the non-dominant limb. The contractions of multiple lower body muscle groups enhanced the activation of the dominant quadriceps. Greater levels of activation may be necessary to cope with the stabilization necessary for bilateral and multi-articular contractions.
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".