MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Use of Motor Imagery Enhances Vastus Medialis Obliquus Muscle Recruitment Amplitudes During Closed Kinetic Chain Squat Exercises

2013· review· en· W2085460821 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia R. Azar, Phillip McKeen, Brittany Cooper, Krista J. Munroe‐Chandler

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor imagerySquatElectromyographyVastus medialisPhysical medicine and rehabilitationConcentricMotor unit recruitmentMedicinePhysical therapyRehabilitationEccentricPsychologyElectroencephalographyMathematicsBrain–computer interface

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the use of motor imagery during the performance of a simple exercise results in increased recruitment in the actively contracting muscles. Sixteen female participants were randomly assigned to an imagery group (n = 8) or a control group (n = 8). Participants performed 3 repetitions of 2 exercises (squats and plies). Although there were no significant differences in vastus medialis obliquus (VMO) muscle activation (electromyography [EMG]) amplitudes between the imagery and control groups, there was a clear trend toward higher EMG amplitudes in the imagery group compared with the control group for the left VMO, which was attributed to the imagery group participants directing their imagery to the left limb. For both groups, the squat exercise elicited significantly higher EMG amplitudes than the plie exercise in both the concentric and eccentric phases of the movement. Although the expected significant differences in EMG amplitudes between the imagery and control groups were not observed, the results of this study suggest that motor imagery is a simple and cost-effective technique that may result in more effective training/rehabilitation practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207