Prior experience does not alter modulation of cutaneous reflexes during manual wheeling and symmetrical arm cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has reported that training and experience influence H-reflex amplitude during rhythmic activity; however, little research has yet examined the influence of training on cutaneous reflexes. Manual wheelchair users (MWUs) depend on their arms for locomotion. We postulated that the daily dependence and high amount of use of the arms for mobility in MWUs would show differences in cutaneous reflex modulation during upper limb cyclic movements compared with able-bodied control subjects. We hypothesized that MWUs would demonstrate increased reflex response amplitudes for both manual wheeling and symmetrical arm cycling tasks. The superficial radial nerve was stimulated randomly at different points of the movement cycle of manual wheeling and symmetrical arm cycling in MWUs and able-bodied subjects naive to wheeling. Our results showed that there were no differences in amplitude modulation of early- or middle-latency cutaneous reflexes between the able-bodied group and the MWU group. However, there were several differences in amplitude modulation of cutaneous reflexes between tasks (manual wheeling and symmetrical arm cycling). Specifically, differences were observed in early-latency responses in the anterior and posterior deltoid muscles and biceps and triceps brachii as well as in middle-latency responses in the anterior and posterior deltoid. These data suggest that manual wheeling experience does not modify the pattern of cutaneous reflex amplitude modulation during manual wheeling. The differences in amplitude modulation of cutaneous reflexes between tasks may be a result of mechanical differences (i.e., hand contact) between tasks.
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) | 0.003 | 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".