Effects of cross-education on the muscle after a period of unilateral limb immobilization using a shoulder sling and swathe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to apply cross-education during 4 wk of unilateral limb immobilization using a shoulder sling and swathe to investigate the effects on muscle strength, muscle size, and muscle activation. Twenty-five right-handed participants were assigned to one of three groups as follows: the Immob + Train group wore a sling and swathe and strength trained (n = 8), the Immob group wore a sling and swathe and did not strength train (n = 8), and the Control group received no treatment (n = 9). Immobilization was applied to the nondominant (left) arm. Strength training consisted of maximal isometric elbow flexion and extension of the dominant (right) arm 3 days/wk. Torque (dynamometer), muscle thickness (ultrasound), maximal voluntary activation (interpolated twitch), and electromyography (EMG) were measured. The change in right biceps and triceps brachii muscle thickness [7.0 ± 1.9 and 7.1 ± 2.2% (SE), respectively] was greater for Immob + Train than Immob (0.4 ± 1.2 and -1.9 ± 1.7%) and Control (0.8 ± 0.5 and 0.0 ± 1.1%, P < 0.05). Left biceps and triceps brachii muscle thickness for Immob + Train (2.2 ± 0.7 and 3.4 ± 2.1%, respectively) was significantly different from Immob (-2.8 ± 1.1 and -5.2 ± 2.7%, respectively, P < 0.05). Right elbow flexion strength for Immob + Train (18.9 ± 5.5%) was significantly different from Immob (-1.6 ± 4.0%, P < 0.05). Right and left elbow extension strength for Immob + Train (68.1 ± 25.9 and 32.2 ± 9.0%, respectively) was significantly different from the respective limb of Immob (1.3 ± 7.7 and -6.1 ± 7.8%) and Control (4.7 ± 4.7 and -0.2 ± 4.5%, P < 0.05). Immobilization in a sling and swathe decreased strength and muscle size but had no effect on maximal voluntary activation or EMG. The cross-education effect on the immobilized limb was greater after elbow extension training. This study suggests that strength training the nonimmobilized limb benefits the immobilized limb for muscle size and strength.
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".