The surface EMG-force relationship during isometric dorsiflexion in males and females.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the tibialis anterior (TA) surface electromyographic (sEMG) to force relationship for males and females. One-hundred participants (50 males and 50 females) performed three isometric contractions at 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) in an apparatus designed to isolate the action of the dorsiflexors. The sEMG signal was amplified (1000x), band-pass filtered (10-500 Hz), and sampled at 2048 Hz. The load cell signal was low-pass filtered at 100 Hz and sampled at the same rate. Males were stronger than females (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the root-mean-square (RMS) amplitude of the sEMG signal between males and females (p < 0.05). Both groups exhibited a quadratic increase in the RMS across force levels (p < 0.05). The mean power frequency (MNF) of the sEMG signal for males was greater than for females (p < 0.05). Males and females exhibited a linear increase in MNF means up to 80% of MVC (p < 0.05). Between 80 and 100% MVC, the frequency values for the females plateaued while males showed a decrease (p < 0.05). The magnitude of the difference in MNF between males and females was consistent with the observation that males have greater type II muscle fiber diameters. In general, the pattern of means for RMS and MNF between males and females revealed no differences between groups in the sEMG-force relationship. We therefore conclude that there are no differences between males and females in the gradation of muscle force.
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) | 0.003 | 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".