MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752082365 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2017-011

The physiological basis of neuromuscular fatigue during high intensity exercise

2017· article· en· W2752082365 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Faryal Zahir, Radha Budhwar, Gabrielle Gonsalves, Lily Green, Aliza Barua

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor unitMotor unit recruitmentMuscle fatiguePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPeripheralMuscle contractionIntensity (physics)MedicineSkeletal muscleNeurosciencePsychologyElectromyographyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Neuromuscular fatigue refers to a reduction in maximal force generation capacity, and is categorized as central and peripheral. Central fatigue is defined as a reduction in the ability of the central nervous system to voluntarily activate muscles, and peripheral fatigue indicates a decrease in the contractile strength of muscle fibers. During high intensity exercise, motor neurons are involved in the recruitment of type IIB muscle fibers as they are fast-twitch, high glycolytic, and have low aerobic capacity. Furthermore, group III and IV muscle afferents detect the physiological circumstances in the body and convey signals to the brain that influence the onset of central and peripheral fatigue. Methods A PRISMA flow diagram was created to record relevant studies found from scholarly databases. Inclusion criteria required studies from 2005 to 2017, and subject grouping headings required key terms indicating that the presence of central and peripheral fatigue was analyzed on healthy adult subjects performing exercise. To ensure that high quality studies were analyzed, each article was independently rated using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Tool criteria. Discussion During low intensity exercise, asynchronous motor unit recruitment is involved in delaying the onset of muscle fatigue. However, this is not apparent in high intensity exercises, as maximal motor unit firing is required in order to sustain a maximal level of force output. Persistent firing of action potentials to maintain muscle contraction results in acetylcholine depletion at the motor end plate, initiating the process of central fatigue. Furthermore, due to prolonged metabolite accumulation in skeletal muscle fibers, group III and IV afferents convey signals to the motor cortex and cause a reduction in the action potential conduction velocities along the contracting muscle. This leads to the onset of peripheral fatigue. As high intensity exercise proceeds, electromyogram (EMG) measurements display this as an increase in amplitude to reflect heightened motor unit recruitment and a compressed power density spectrum alongside a decreased centre frequency. This is determined by the innervated muscle fiber’s conduction velocity and subsequent variations in the action potential waveform shape. Conclusion A record of current studies systematically display the overview of muscle fatigue and its underlying mechanisms during exercise. However, further research is yet to be conducted for a more comprehensive understanding regarding the onset and recovery of neuromuscular fatigue in varied population demographics and physiological circumstances. Likewise, the distinctive roles of group III and IV muscle afferents in supraspinal stimulation require further investigation in order to gain a holistic understanding of their involvement in central fatigue and resistance training. Additional research in this subject matter is currently being explored through technology involving imaging studies, as they have potential to elucidate motor cortex activity alongside other regions of the brain and portray neuromuscular muscle fatigue eminently.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTEM Fellowship JournalSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207