Observations on force enhancement in submaximal voluntary contractions of human adductor pollicis muscle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been observed consistently and is well accepted that the steady-state isometric force after active muscle stretch is greater than the corresponding isometric force for electrically stimulated muscles and maximal voluntary contractions. However, this so-called force enhancement has not been studied for submaximal voluntary efforts; therefore, it is not known whether this property affects everyday movements. The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was force enhancement during submaximal voluntary contractions. Human adductor pollicis muscles (n = 17) were studied using a custom-built dynamometer, and both force and activation were measured while muscle activation and force were controlled at a level of 30% of maximal voluntary contraction. The steady-state isometric force and activation after active stretch were compared with the corresponding values obtained during isometric reference contractions. There was consistent and reliable force enhancement in 8 of the 17 subjects, whereas there was no force enhancement in the remaining subjects. Subjects with force enhancement had greater postactivation potentiation and a smaller resistance to fatigue in the adductor pollicis. We conclude from these results that force enhancement exists during submaximal voluntary contractions in a subset of the populations and suggest that it may affect everyday voluntary movements in this subset. On the basis of follow-up testing, it appears that force enhancement during voluntary contractions is linked to potentiation and fatigue resistance and therefore possibly to the fiber-type distribution in the adductor pollicis muscle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".