Effects of Specific Exercise Instructions on Abdominal Muscle Activity During Trunk Curl Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A repeated-measures, counterbalanced design. OBJECTIVES: To test whether subjects could learn and retain the ability to alter the relative activity of abdominal muscle groups when performing trunk curl exercises. BACKGROUND: Although trunk curl exercises are widely prescribed, a disadvantage of trunk curls is that they primarily activate rectus abdominis, while the internal and external oblique abdominis muscles are considered to be more important contributors to lumbar stability. METHODS AND MEASURES: A convenience sample of 25 subjects performed trunk curl exercises in accordance with 3 different sets of instructions: nonspecific instructions (NS), instructions intended to emphasize rectus abdominis activity (RE), and instructions intended to emphasize oblique abdominis activity (OE). Electromyographic (EMG) activity was recorded from the upper and lower rectus and the internal and external oblique abdominis muscles while a physical target was used to insure that the trunk was raised to the same height for all conditions. Normalized root-mean-square EMG amplitude measures were used to test for instruction-dependent changes in the relative EMG activity of the rectus and oblique muscle groups. RESULTS: Following a single, brief, instruction session, subjects performing trunk curls had significantly greater normalized oblique:rectus EMG ratios when following OE instructions (mean [+/- SD] oblique-rectus ratio, 1.45 +/- 0.34) than when following RE (mean [+/- SD] oblique-rectus ratio, 0.76 +/- 0.24) or NS (mean [ISD] oblique-rectus ratio, 0.63 +/- 0.23) instructions. Retesting 1 week later indicated that subjects retained this skill. CONCLUSIONS: With minimal instruction, subjects are able to volitionally alter the relative activity of the oblique and rectus abdominis muscles when performing trunk curls. Incorporating instructions emphasizing oblique abdominis activity into lumbar stabilization programs appears promising and has potential advantages over other approaches to altering abdominal muscle activity during trunk
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".