Central fatigue of the first dorsal interosseous muscle during low‐force and high‐force sustained submaximal contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the extent of central fatigue in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle of healthy adults in low, moderate and high-force submaximal contractions. Nine healthy adults completed four experimental sessions where index finger abduction force was recorded during voluntary contractions and in response to brief trains (five pulses at 100 Hz) of electrical stimulation. The ability to maximally activate FDI under volition, or voluntary activation, and its change with sustained activity (central fatigue) was assessed using the twitch interpolation technique. The fatigue tasks consisted of continuous isometric index finger abduction contractions held until exhaustion at four target force levels: 30%, 45%, 60% and 75% of the maximal voluntary contraction. The main finding was the presence of central fatigue for the 30% task, but not for the three other fatigue tasks. The extent of central fatigue was also associated with changes in a measure reflecting the status of peripheral structures/mechanisms. It appears that central fatigue contributed to task failure for the lowest force fatigue task (30%), but not for the other (higher) contraction intensities.
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) | 0.001 | 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".