Optimized maximum voluntary exertion protocol for normalizing shoulder muscle activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle activity is typically normalized to maximal activation from isometric maximum voluntary exertions (MVE) in posture and direction specific exertions for each muscle. This is challenging for the shoulder complex due to the large number of muscles. The objective of this investigation was to compare maximum shoulder muscle activity elicited from a multi-muscle MVE test protocol versus individual muscle MVE tests and determine their reliability. Ten healthy males had muscle activity recorded from 12 trunk and upper extremity muscles while performing 3 repetitions of 12 individual and 4 multi-muscle MVEs. Peak surface EMG (sEMG) amplitudes were compared using paired sample t-tests between the two protocols for each muscle. Individual muscle test maximum sEMG amplitudes differed significantly from the multi-muscle test protocol in 3 of 12 muscles (p < 0.05). In muscles that did not attain statistical significance, maximum amplitude differences of 6–15% were found. There was high reliability (Interclass Correlation Coefficient, ICC = 0.831–0.986) and no significant differences between the second and third repetitions of the protocol. Since differences of 6–15% could have functional significance, 8 MVE tests (3 multi-muscle, 5 individual muscle) were selected for future use. Using two repetitions of the reduced MVE protocol will reduce time, risk of pain and injury during experiments.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".