Premovement Changes in Corticospinal Excitability of the Biceps Brachii are Not Different Between Arm Cycling and an Intensity-Matched Tonic Contraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if supraspinal and/or spinal motoneuron excitability of the biceps brachii were differentially modulated before: 1) arm cycling and 2) an intensity-matched tonic contraction. Surface EMG recordings of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) were used to assess supraspinal and spinal motoneuron excitability, respectively. MEP amplitudes were larger and onset latencies shorter, before arm cycling and tonic contraction when compared with rest with no intent to move, but with no difference between motor outputs. CMEP amplitudes and onset latencies remained unchanged before cycling and tonic contraction compared with rest. Premovement enhancement of corticospinal excitability was due to an increase in supraspinal excitability that was not task-dependent. This suggests that a common neural drive is used to initiate both motor outputs with task-dependent changes in neural excitability only being evident once the motor outputs have begun.
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".