Considerations on the history dependence of muscle contraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a skeletal muscle that is actively producing force is shortened or stretched, the resulting steady-state isometric force after the dynamic phase is smaller or greater, respectively, than the purely isometric force obtained at the corresponding final length. The cross-bridge model of muscle contraction does not readily explain this history dependence of force production. The most accepted proposal to explain both, force depression after shortening and force enhancement after stretch, is a nonuniform behavior of sarcomeres that develops during and after length changes. This hypothesis is based on the idea of instability of sarcomere lengths on the descending limb of the force-length relationship. However, recent evidence suggests that skeletal muscles may be stable over the entire range of active force production, including the descending limb of the force-length relationship. The purpose of this review was to critically evaluate hypotheses aimed at explaining the history dependence of force production and to provide some novel insight into the possible mechanisms underlying these phenomena. It is concluded that the sarcomere nonuniformity hypothesis cannot always explain the total force enhancement observed after stretch and likely does not cause all of the force depression after shortening. There is evidence that force depression after shortening is associated with a reduction in the proportion of attached cross bridges, which, in turn, might be related to a stress-induced inhibition of cross-bridge attachment in the myofilament overlap zone. Furthermore, we suggest that force enhancement is not associated with instability of sarcomeres on the descending limb of the force-length relationship and that force enhancement has an active and a passive component. Force depression after shortening and force enhancement after stretch are likely to have different origins.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".