Modeling investigation of learning a fast elbow flexion in the horizontal plane—prediction of muscle forces and motor units action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental investigation of practicing a dynamic, goal-directed movement reveals significant changes in kinematics. Modeling can provide insight into the alterations in muscle activity, associated with the kinematic adaptations, and reveal the potential motor unit (MU) firing patterns that underlie those changes. In this paper, a previously developed muscle model and software (Raikova and Aladjov, Journal of Biomechanics, 35, 2002) have been used to investigate changes in MU control, while practicing fast elbow flexion to a target in the horizontal plane. The first trial (before practice) and the last trial (after extensive practice) of two subjects have been simulated. The inputs for the simulation were the calculated external moments at the elbow joint. The external moments were countered by the action of three flexor muscles and two extensor ones. The muscles have been modeled as a mixture of MUs of different types. The software has chosen the MU firing times necessary to accomplish the movement. The muscle forces and MUs firing statistics were then calculated. Three hypotheses were tested and confirmed: (1) peak muscle forces and antagonist co-contraction increase during training; (2) there is an increase in the firing frequency and the synchronization between MUs; and (3) the recruitment of fast-twitch MUs dominates the action.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".