MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147161767 · doi:10.1123/mcj.12.2.79

Effects of Fatigue on Intermuscular Coordination during Repetitive Hammering

2008· article· en· W2147161767 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie N. Côté, Anatol G. Feldman, Pierre Mathieu, Mindy F. Levin

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKinematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTrunkMuscle fatigueMovement (music)ElectromyographyMotor coordinationWristElbowPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicineAnatomyPhysicsNeuroscienceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fatigue affects the capacity of muscles to generate forces and is associated with characteristic changes in EMG signals. It may also influence interjoint and intermuscular coordination. To understand better the global effects of fatigue on multijoint movement, we studied movement kinematics and EMG changes in healthy volunteers asked to hammer repetitively. Movement kinematics and the activity of 20 muscles of the arm, trunk, and leg were recorded before and after subjects became fatigued (as measured using a Borg scale). When fatigue was reached, maximal grip strength and elbow range of motion decreased while the EMG amplitude of the contralateral external oblique muscle was increased. Fatigue did not affect shoulder and wrist kinematics or movement frequency. Results suggest that fatigue influences motion at both local and global levels. Specifically, interjoint and intermuscular coordination adapt to compensate for local effects of fatigue and to maintain key movement characteristics, such as the trajectory of the end effector and the movement frequency. Nonlocal compensations may be a focus of future studies of how fatigue affects complex movements such as those typically performed in the workplace.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMotor ControlSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207