Older Adults Underestimate RPE and Knee Extensor Torque as Compared with Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine knee extensor muscle recruitment, torque, and perceived exertion between healthy young and old adults. METHODS: During the first experimental session, subjects performed 6-s isometric knee extension contractions to intensities ranging from 10% to 90% (10% increments, random order) of three maximal voluntary contractions (MVC), during which RPE were obtained. During the second session, subjects performed 6-s isometric contractions to perceived exertion intensities corresponding to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and "maximal" on a modified Borg category-ratio scale, in a random order, to obtain the produced torque. Surface EMG were recorded from the vastus medialis (VM), vastus lateralis (VL), and rectus femoris (RF) muscles. RESULTS: Perceived exertion was significantly (P < 0.05) greater for young than for old adults across 10%-90% MVC. Significantly (P < 0.05) greater VL and RF muscle EMG than the VM across 10%-90% MVC was observed for the young adults, whereas the old adults demonstrated no significant differences between the muscles. The produced torque across the perceived exertion levels was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in old than that in young adults. VL and RF muscle EMG was significantly greater than the VM muscle across the perceived exertion levels in the young adults. Recruitment of the VM, VL, and RF muscles was not significantly different across the perceived exertion levels in the old adults. CONCLUSIONS: The major findings demonstrated that healthy older adults underestimate voluntary knee extensor torque as compared with young adults, which may be driven by differential patterns of muscle recruitment.
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".