Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation on elbow flexor maximal voluntary isometric strength and endurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) strength and the time to failure (TTF) in an isometric (30% MVC) muscle endurance test of the elbow flexors were investigated. Fifteen men (mean age, 27.7 ± 8.4 years) were tested for MVC strength and TTF 2 times, separated by a 60-min rest. During the last 10 min of the rest period, 1 of 2 tDCS treatments or 1 sham intervention session was administered, in a randomized order, with 1 week between sessions. In the tDCS intervention, a 2 mA direct current was delivered for 10 min through an anode placed on the scalp, overlying the right motor cortical representation of the left arm; a cathode was secured over the right shoulder. In the sham intervention, the current was delivered for the first 30 s only. No significant differences between the first and second tDCS sessions were evident for MVC strength or TTF. For MVC strength (baseline, 66.0 ± 11.4 Nm), postintervention measures decreased by 5.9% ± 4.2% (p < 0.05), but no significant difference in the changes was evident between tDCS and sham sessions. TTF did not change significantly from preintervention (309.2 ± 91.6 s) to postintervention (327.2 ± 128.5 s), and there was no significant difference between interventions. It was concluded that the tDCS intervention did not affect muscle function, perhaps because of ceiling effects, in which the intervention does not enhance muscle function further when muscle function is already maximal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".