MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093109285 · doi:10.1002/mus.21288

Nonlinear twitch torque summation by motor units activated at M‐wave and H‐reflex latencies

2009· article· en· W2093109285 on OpenAlexafffund
Jesse C. Dean, David F. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueMuscle & Nerve · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research
KeywordsTorqueAmplitudeReflexF waveH-reflexPhysicsStimulationTorque motorLatency (audio)ElectromyographyMathematicsDirect torque controlInduction motorPsychologyNeuroscienceEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringOpticsQuantum mechanicsNerve conduction velocity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have suggested previously that motor units recruited reflexively contribute to torque produced during neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), but this has not been tested directly. The current experiments were designed to quantify the contributions to twitch torque made by motor units recruited at M-wave and H-reflex latencies. The relationship between M-wave amplitude and torque was not linear. Rather, increases in M-wave amplitude caused the largest torque increases when M-waves were small. In addition, the torque contributions made by motor units recruited at M-wave and H-reflex latencies did not sum linearly, as changes in H-reflex amplitude only caused significant changes in torque when M-waves were small (<18% M(max)). This nonlinear summation of torque can be explained by the different latencies of twitches evoked by M-waves and H-reflexes. Large M-waves produce strong contractions at a short latency, possibly introducing slack into adjacent muscle fibers and reducing the ability of motor units recruited reflexively to generate torque. Muscle Nerve 40: 221-230, 2009.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.766

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMuscle & NerveSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207