Are H-reflex and M-wave recruitment curve parameters related to aerobic capacity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soleus Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) amplitude is affected by a training period and type and level of training are also well known to modify aerobic capacities. Previously, paired changes in H-reflex and aerobic capacity have been evidenced after endurance training. The aim of this study was to investigate possible links between H- and M-recruitment curve parameters and aerobic capacity collected on a cohort of subjects (56 young men) that were not involved in regular physical training. Maximal H-reflex normalized with respect to maximal M-wave (H(max)/M(max)) was measured as well as other parameters of the H- or M-recruitment curves that provide information about the reflex or direct excitability of the motoneuron pool, such as thresholds of stimulus intensity to obtain H or M response (H(th) and M(th)), the ascending slope of H-reflex, or M-wave recruitment curves (H(slp) and M(slp)) and their ratio (H(slp)/M(slp)). Aerobic capacity, i.e., maximal oxygen consumption and maximal aerobic power (MAP) were, respectively, estimated from a running field test and from an incremental test on a cycle ergometer. Maximal oxygen consumption was only correlated with M(slp), an indicator of muscle fiber heterogeneity (p < 0.05), whereas MAP was not correlated with any of the tested parameters (p > 0.05). Although higher H-reflex are often described for subjects with a high aerobic capacity because of endurance training, at a basic level (i.e., without training period context) no correlation was observed between maximal H-reflex and aerobic capacity. Thus, none of the H-reflex or M-wave recruitment curve parameters, except M(slp), was related to the aerobic capacity of young, untrained male subjects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".