Effect of a peripheral nerve block on torque produced by repetitive electrical stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) generates contractions by activation of motor axons (peripheral mechanism), but the afferent volley also contributes by recruiting spinal motoneurons synaptically (central mechanism), which recruits motoneurons according to Henneman's size principle. Thus, we hypothesized that contractions that develop due to a combination of peripheral and central mechanisms will fatigue less rapidly than when electrically evoked contractions are generated by the activation of motor axons alone. Plantar-flexion torque evoked by NMES over the triceps surae was compared in five able-bodied subjects before (Intact) and during (Blocked) a complete anesthetic block of the tibial and common peroneal nerves. In the Blocked condition, plantar-flexion torque could only develop from the direct activation of motor axons beneath the stimulating electrodes. NMES was delivered using three protocols: protocol A, constant 100 Hz for 30 s; protocol B, four 2-s bursts of 100 Hz alternating with 20-Hz stimulation; and protocol C, alternating 100 Hz bursts (1 s on, 1 s off) for 30 s. The percent change in evoked plantar flexion torque from the beginning to the end of the stimulation differed (P < 0.05) between Intact and Blocked conditions for all protocols (Intact: protocol A = +125%, B = +230%, C = +78%; Blocked: protocol A = -79%, B = -15%, C = -35%). These results corroborate previous evidence that NMES can evoke contractions via the recruitment of spinal motoneurons in addition to the direct recruitment of motor axons. We now show that NMES delivered for periods of up to 30 s generates plantar-flexion torque which decreases when only motor axons are recruited and increases when the central nervous system can contribute.
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 | 0.000 | 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".