The Effect of Muscle Fatigue on Position Sense in an Upper Limb Multi-joint Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which muscle fatigue can impact on the position sense in the upper limb. Twelve healthy volunteers were asked to do a reaching task while grasping a wooden block and match the block's position with a corresponding target displayed on a flat screen, without vision. Following that, subjects performed resistive exercises with Thera-band strips until fatigue was induced and then the position sense task was repeated. A significant change in the endpoint position was observed after fatigue, in the up/down direction (p ≤ .001). The variability of endpoint positions in up/down direction was also significantly increased after fatigue (p ≤.03). There was no significant change in endpoint orientation but there was a significant fatigue × orientation effect on endpoint rotational variability. In a follow-up experiment, a group of subjects repeated the same protocol, but with a period of quiet rest between the two position sense tasks. In that group, there were no differences in endpoint position, orientation or variability. Muscle fatigue is an important factor that should be taken into consideration during the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries as well as athletic training.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".