Synchronization of Motor Units in Human Soleus Muscle During Standing Postural Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During standing posture, the soleus muscles acts to control sway in the anteroposterior (AP) direction. The soleus muscles bilaterally share a common function during standing tasks. We sought to determine whether common descending inputs, as evidenced by the synchronization of bilateral motor unit pairs, were employed as a strategy to control this common function. Single motor units were recorded from the soleus muscles in subjects who stood on adjacent force platforms for 5 min with their eyes open or closed. While standing with the eyes open, only 4/39 bilateral motor unit pairs showed significant synchronization. Similarly, only 3/36 motor unit pairs were significantly synchronized during the eyes closed task. The low incidence of synchronization was observed despite a high correlation in the amount of sway in the AP direction between legs in both the eyes open and eyes closed tasks (rho = 0.80 and rho = 0.83, respectively). When the extent of synchronization was assessed between pairs of motor units within the same leg with the eyes open, 10/12 pairs were synchronized. Furthermore, when pairs of soleus motor units were recorded both bilaterally and unilaterally during voluntary isometric ankle plantarflexion, only 4/30 bilateral pairs showed significant synchronization, whereas 19/24 unilateral pairs had significant synchronization. In this study, there was little evidence of the existence of synchronization between bilateral soleus motor unit pairs in either postural tasks or voluntary isometric contractions. In cases in which bilateral synchronization was observed, it was considerably weaker than the synchronization of motor units within a single soleus muscle. The results of this study reveal that it is rather uncommon for bilateral soleus motoneurons to receive common descending synaptic inputs, whereas two motoneurons within a single soleus muscle do.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".