Alternating Consecutive Maximum Contractions as a Test of Muscle Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although regularly used, the standard strength test (SST) is known to have several shortcomings, such as being based only on sustained maximum forces, and on a relatively large number of trials that expose the tested muscle to rapid fatigue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate alternating consecutive maximum contractions (ACMCs) as a test of the muscle function through its comparison with SST. Twenty-four participants performed both the externally paced isometric ACMC (i.e., series of consecutive maximum force exertions in 2 directions) and SST of the knee extensor and flexor muscle. The derived variables of both tests included the knee extensor and flexor peak forces (PFs) and their maximum rates of development. Movement speed and muscle power output were also assessed through standard maximum performance tests. Both ACMC and SST revealed on average high intratrial (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0.80) and moderate-to-high test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.60), and significant (p < 0.05) positive relationships among the PFs and their rates of development of the tested muscles. The variables of both tests also suggested on average moderate correlations with the maximum performance tests. Finally, ACMC variables revealed relatively stable values across a wide range of frequencies including the 'self-selected' one. Although some properties of ACMC could be similar to SST, the important comparative advantages of ACMC could be relatively low and transitional maximum forces exerted, and fewer trials needed for testing 2 antagonistic muscles. Although further research is needed, particularly concerning the external validity and generalizability, we conclude that the ACMC represents a test of muscle function that could be applied either as an alternative or complementary test to SST.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".