Coordination patterns of shoulder muscles during level-ground and incline wheelchair propulsion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate how the coordination patterns of shoulder muscles change with level-ground and incline wheelchair propulsion. Wheelchair kinetics and electromyography (EMG) activity of seven muscles were recorded with surface electrodes for 15 nondisabled subjects during wheelchair propulsion on a stationary ergometer and wooden ramp (4 degree slope). Kinetic data were measured by a SmartWheel. The kinetics variables and the onset, cessation, and duration of EMG activity from seven muscles were compared with paired t-tests for two sessions. Muscle coordination patterns across seven muscles were analyzed by principal component analysis. Push forces on the push rim and the percentage of push phase in the cycle increased significantly during incline propulsion. Propulsion condition and posture affected muscle coordination patterns. During incline propulsion, there was more intense and longer EMG activity of push muscles in the push phase and less EMG activity of the recovery muscles, which corresponded with the increased kinetic data total force output and longer push phase in the incline condition. This work establishes a framework for developing a performance feedback system for wheelchair users to better coordinate their muscle patterning activity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".