Stimulus pulse‐width influences H‐reflex recruitment but not H<sub>max</sub>/M<sub>max</sub> ratio
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been proposed that pulse-widths of 0.5-1.0 ms should be used to evoke H-reflexes in humans; however, the influence of pulse-width on H-reflex recruitment over a range of stimulus intensities has not been well characterized. We constructed soleus H-reflex vs. M-wave recruitment curves using 50, 200, 500, and 1000 micros pulses in 12 subjects. In contrast to previous findings, changing the pulse-width did not significantly alter maximal H-reflex (H(max)) or M-wave (M(max)) amplitudes or H(max)/M(max) ratios. In fact, the 1000 micros pulses resulted in larger H-reflexes when the M-wave was 5% M(max); smaller M-waves at H(max); and lower H-reflex thresholds compared with 50 micros pulses. These differences reflect a leftward shift in the H-reflex vs. M-wave recruitment curve when using wide vs. narrow pulses and, combined with no change in the H(max)/M(max) ratios, suggest that factors other than antidromic collision in motor axons limit H(max). These results support the idea that 1,000 micros pulses should be used to evoke H-reflexes and suggest that wider pulses may be beneficial to generate contractions with a greater reflex contribution when using neuromuscular stimulation for rehabilitation.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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 it