Force enhancement following muscle stretch of electrically stimulated and voluntarily activated human adductor pollicis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For electrically stimulated muscles, it has been observed that maximal muscle force during and after stretch is substantially greater than the corresponding isometric force. However, this observation has not been made for human voluntary contractions. We investigated the effects of active muscle stretch on muscle force production for in vivo human adductor pollicis (n = 12) during maximal voluntary contractions and electrically induced contractions. Peak forces during stretch, steady-state isometric forces following stretch, and passive forces following muscle deactivation were compared to the corresponding isometric forces obtained at optimal muscle length. Contractions with different stretch magnitudes (10, 20, and 30 deg at a constant speed of 10 deg s(-1)) and different speeds (10, 20, and 60 deg s(-1) over a range of 30 deg) were performed in triplicate in a random order, balanced design. We found three novel results: (i) there was steady-state force enhancement following stretch in voluntarily contracted muscles; (ii) some force enhancement persisted following relaxation of the muscle and (iii) force enhancement, for some stretch conditions, exceeded the maximum isometric force at optimal muscle length. We conclude from these results that voluntary muscle contraction produces similar force enhancement to that observed in the past with electrically stimulated preparations. Therefore, steady-state force enhancement may play a role in everyday movements. Furthermore, these results suggest that non-uniformities in sarcomere length do not, at least not exclusively, account for the force enhancement following active muscle stretch, and that the stretch magnitude-dependent passive force enhancement observed here may be responsible for the enhancement of force above the isometric reference force at optimal muscle length.
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".