Roller-Massager Application to the Quadriceps and Knee-Joint Range of Motion and Neuromuscular Efficiency During a Lunge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Roller massagers are used as a recovery and rehabilitative tool to initiate muscle relaxation and improve range of motion (ROM) and muscular performance. However, research demonstrating such effects is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of applying a roller massager for 20 and 60 seconds on knee-joint ROM and dynamic muscular performance. DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: University laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Ten recreationally active men (age = 26.6 ± 5.2 years, height = 175.3 ± 4.3 cm, mass = 84.4 ± 8.8 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Participants performed 3 randomized experimental conditions separated by 24 to 48 hours. In condition 1 (5 repetitions of 20 seconds) and condition 2 (5 repetitions of 60 seconds), they applied a roller massager to the quadriceps muscles. Condition 3 served as a control condition in which participants sat quietly. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Visual analog pain scale, electromyography (EMG) of the vastus lateralis (VL) and biceps femoris during roller massage and lunge, and knee-joint ROM. RESULTS: We found no differences in pain between the 20-second and 60-second roller-massager conditions. During 60 seconds of roller massage, pain was 13.5% (5.7 ± 0.70) and 20.6% (6.2 ± 0.70) greater at 40 seconds and 60 seconds, respectively, than at 20 seconds (P < .05). During roller massage, VL and biceps femoris root mean square (RMS) EMG was 8% and 7%, respectively, of RMS EMG recorded during maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Knee-joint ROM was 10% and 16% greater in the 20-second and 60-second roller-massager conditions, respectively, than the control condition (P < .05). Finally, average lunge VL RMS EMG decreased as roller-massage time increased (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Roller massage was painful and induced muscle activity, but it increased knee-joint ROM and neuromuscular efficiency during a lunge.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".