Reducing Muscle Fatigue Due to Functional Electrical Stimulation Using Random Modulation of Stimulation Parameters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major limitation of many functional electrical stimulation (FES) applications is that muscles tend to fatigue very rapidly. It was hypothesized that FES-induced muscle fatigue could be reduced by randomly modulating the pulse frequency, amplitude, and pulse width in a range of +/-15%. Seven subjects with spinal-cord injuries participated in this study. FES was applied to quadriceps and tibialis anterior muscles using surface electrodes. Isometric force was measured, and the time for the force to drop by 3 dB (fatigue time) was compared between trials. Four different modes of FES were applied in random order: constant stimulation, randomized frequency, randomized amplitude, and randomized pulse width. There was no significant difference between the fatigue-time measurements for the four modes of stimulation (P=0.329). Therefore, random modulation appeared to have no effect. Based on an observed correlation between maximum force measurements and trial order, we concluded that having 10-min rest periods between trials was insufficient.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it