Electromyographic Comparison of the Upper and Lower Rectus Abdominis During Abdominal Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this pilot study was to determine the effect of 6 different abdominal exercises on the electrical activity of the upper rectus abdominis (URA) and lower rectus abdominis (LRA). Eight healthy, adult volunteers completed 6 random abdominal exercises: curl up, Sissel ball curl up, Ab Trainer curl up, leg lowering, Sissel ball roll out, and reverse curl up. Action potentials were recorded and analyzed from the URA and the LRA using surface electromyography (EMG) during a 2-second concentric contraction. The average normalized data were compared between the URA and the LRA in order to determine the behavior of the different muscle sites and between exercises in order to determine which exercises elicited the highest EMG activity. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the EMG activity of the URA and LRA during any exercise. There were no significant interactions between subject and muscle site or between exercise and muscle site. Significant differences were found among the 6 exercises performed, and due to the interaction between subject and exercise performed. Both the URA and the LRA recorded significantly higher mean amplitudes during the Sissel ball curl up than during all other exercises. In addition, the curl up, Sissel ball curl up, and Ab Trainer curl up had significantly higher normalized EMG activity in both muscle sites than the reverse curl up, the leg lowering exercise, and the Sissel ball roll out. The curl up and the Ab Trainer curl up exercises were not significantly different in terms of their normalized EMG activities for both the URA and the LRA.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".