The Reliability Of An Isometric Test Based On Constant Perception Of Effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greater isolation of physiological processes is possible during isometric contractions when compared to whole-body performance. However, to date there is no documented procedure to extrapolate findings of an isometric nature to a whole body performance setting. PURPOSE: To quantify the reliability of using perceived effort to control neuromuscular output during isometric contractions. Hypothesis: Perception of effort will produce a similar isometric torque between days. METHODS: 8 participants (male n=4) recruited for their familiarization with isometric contractions (> 8 h/w of wrestling, dance, rugby) performed 1 familiarization session followed by 4 consecutive days of testing. During all contractions the knee joint was positioned at 90° and sub-maximal contractions of the knee extensors were held for 2 min. The indicator exercise required participants to maintain a sub-maximal torque (30% MVC) using visual feedback and, to indicate the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) every 30s. The predictor exercise required participants to maintain a consistent RPE with no external feedback. Sessions 1 and 4 included an MVC, indicator and predictor; sessions 2 and 3 included a single predictor exercise. Blood pressure was measured prior to and following each contraction, and heart rate variability was measured throughout the contraction via telemetry. In addition, subjective self efficacy for maintaining either a consistent torque or RPE was taken prior to each contraction. RESULTS: MVC torque and RPE during indicator exercises were consistent between days 1 and 4 (217±101Nm and 196±75Nm; 16.2 and 17.2 respectively p<0.05). Self efficacy to maintain a RPE for 2 min was similar across testing days, ranging from 84-88%. Heart rate variability steadily declined during the first min of the predictor and remained steady thereafter. Determination of the predictor reliability was poor across 4 days of contractions (ICC = 0.309). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that perception of effort is not a reliable method to prescribe neuromuscular output during an isometric single joint contraction. While physiological responses were a consistent day to day measure, the conscious interpretation of afferent information is likely dependent on more factors than were controlled for in this experiment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".