MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802245354 · doi:10.1152/jn.00512.2017

Neck muscle biomechanics and neural control

2018· article· en· W2802245354 on OpenAlexaff
Jason B. Fice, Gunter P. Siegmund, Jean‐Sébastien Blouin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomechanicsMotor controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeck musclesNeuroscienceAnatomyComputer sciencePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanics, morphometry, and geometry of our joints, segments, and muscles are fundamental biomechanical properties intrinsic to human neural control. The goal of our study was to investigate whether the biomechanical actions of individual neck muscles predict their neural control. Specifically, we compared the moment direction and variability produced by electrical stimulation of a neck muscle (biomechanics) to the preferred activation direction and variability (neural control). Subjects sat upright with their head fixed to a six-axis load cell and their torso restrained. Indwelling wire electrodes were placed into the sternocleidomastoid (SCM), splenius capitis (SPL), and semispinalis capitis (SSC) muscles. The electrically stimulated direction was defined as the moment direction produced when a current (2-19 mA) was passed through each muscle's electrodes. Preferred activation direction was defined as the vector sum of the spatial tuning curve built from root mean squared electromyogram when subjects produced isometric moments at 7.5% and 15% of their maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) in 26 three-dimensional directions. The spatial tuning curves at 15% MVC were well defined (unimodal, P < 0.05), and their preferred directions were 23°, 39°, and 21° different from their electrically stimulated directions for the SCM, SPL, and SSC, respectively ( P < 0.05). Intrasubject variability was smaller in electrically stimulated moment directions compared with voluntary preferred directions, and intrasubject variability decreased with increased activation levels. Our findings show that the neural control of neck muscles is not based solely on optimizing individual muscle biomechanics but, as activation increases, biomechanical constraints in part dictate the activation of synergistic neck muscles. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Biomechanics are an intrinsic part of human neural control. In this study, we found that the biomechanics of individual neck muscles cannot fully predict their neural control. Consequently, physiologically based computational neck muscle controllers cannot calculate muscle activation schemes based on the isolated biomechanics of muscles. Furthermore, by measuring biomechanics we showed that the intrasubject variability of the neural control was lower for electrical vs. voluntary activation of the neck muscles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207