Location of Instability During a Bench Press Alters Movement Patterns and Electromyographical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instability training devices with the bench press exercise are becoming increasingly popular. Typically, the instability device is placed at the trunk/upper body (e.g., lying on a Swiss ball); however, a recent product called the Attitube has been developed, which places the location of instability at the hands by users lifting a water-filled tube. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the effects of different instability devices (location of instability) on kinematic and electromyographical patterns during the bench press exercise. Ten healthy males were recruited and performed 1 set of 3 repetitions for 3 different bench press conditions: Olympic bar on a stable bench (BENCH), Olympic bar on a stability ball (BALL), and Attitube on a stable bench (TUBE). The eccentric and concentric phases were analyzed in 10% intervals while electromyography was recorded from 24 electrode sites, and motion capture was used to track elbow flexion angle and 3-dimensional movement trajectories and vertical velocity of the Bar/Attitube. The prime movers tended to show a reduction in muscle activity during the TUBE trials; however, pectoralis major initially showed increased activation during the eccentric phase of the TUBE condition. The trunk muscle activations were greatest during the TUBE and smallest during the BAR. In addition, the TUBE showed decreased range of elbow flexion and increased medial-lateral movement of the Attitube itself. The results further support the notion that instability devices may be more beneficial for trunk muscles rather than prime movers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".