Muscle coordination limits efficiency and power output of human limb movement under a wide range of mechanical demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of cycle frequency and workload on muscle coordination and the ensuing relationship with mechanical efficiency and power output of human limb movement. Eleven trained cyclists completed an array of cycle frequency (cadence)-power output conditions while excitation from 10 leg muscles and power output were recorded. Mechanical efficiency was maximized at increasing cadences for increasing power outputs and corresponded to muscle coordination and muscle fiber type recruitment that minimized both the total muscle excitation across all muscles and the ineffective pedal forces. Also, maximum efficiency was characterized by muscle coordination at the top and bottom of the pedal cycle and progressive excitation through the uniarticulate knee, hip, and ankle muscles. Inefficiencies were characterized by excessive excitation of biarticulate muscles and larger duty cycles. Power output and efficiency were limited by the duration of muscle excitation beyond a critical cadence (120-140 rpm), with larger duty cycles and disproportionate increases in muscle excitation suggesting deteriorating muscle coordination and limitations of the activation-deactivation capabilities. Most muscles displayed systematic phase shifts of the muscle excitation relative to the pedal cycle that were dependent on cadence and, to a lesser extent, power output. Phase shifts were different for each muscle, thereby altering their mechanical contribution to the pedaling action. This study shows that muscle coordination is a key determinant of mechanical efficiency and power output of limb movement across a wide range of mechanical demands and that the excitation and coordination of the muscles is limited at very high cycle frequencies.
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".