Head and Arm Positions that Elicit Maximal Voluntary Trunk Range-of-Motion Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relationships have been shown between spinal motion and head and arm postures, yet there has been little standardization of the head and arm positions that elicit maximal voluntary spine angles during maximal trunk flexion, lateral bend, and axial twist. This study aimed to determine the head and arm positions that facilitated maximum voluntary range of motion in various spinal regions during these movements. Twenty-four individuals performed maximal movements in each plane with different combinations of head and arm positions (flexion and lateral bend: four combinations; axial twist: six combinations). Generally, greater angles were elicited for the upper spine regions when the head was moved in the direction of trunk motion, while the angles of the lower regions were either unaffected or greater when the head was kept in a neutral position. Arm positions also affected maximum spinal angles, in that angles were greatest when the arms were hanging to the floor (flexion), abducted to 90° (axial twist), and either hanging to the floor or crossed over the chest (lateral bend). These findings provide insight into the interplay between the spine and adjacent segments and constitute an initial attempt to develop standardized positions during maximum range-of-motion trials.
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 | 0.001 | 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".