Quantification of the Differences in Electromyographic Activity Magnitude Between the Upper and Lower Portions of the Rectus Abdominis Muscle During Selected Trunk Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Controversy exists around exercises and clinical tests that attempt to differentially activate the upper or lower portions of the rectus abdominis muscle. The purpose of this study was to assess the activation of the upper and lower portions of the rectus abdominis muscle during a variety of abdominal muscle contractions. SUBJECTS: Subjects (N = 11) were selected from a university population for athletic ability and low subcutaneous fat to optimize electromyographic (EMG) signal collection. METHODS: Controlling for spine curvature, range of motion, and posture (and, therefore, muscle length), EMG activity of the external oblique muscle and upper and lower portions of rectus abdominis muscle was measured during the isometric portion of curl-ups, abdominal muscle lifts, leg raises, and restricted or attempted leg raises and curl-ups. A one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to test for differences in activity between exercises in the external oblique and rectus abdominis muscles as well as between the portions of the rectus abdominis muscle. RESULTS: No differences in muscle activity were found between the upper and lower portions of the rectus abdominis muscle within and between exercises. External oblique muscle activity, however, showed differences between exercises. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Normalizing the EMG signal led the authors to believe that the differences between the portions of the rectus abdominis muscle are small and may lack clinical or therapeutic relevance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".