Experimental noxious stimulation of the right masseter muscle does not affect bilateral masseter and temporalis muscle activity and force parameters during standardised isometric biting tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine if the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the left and right masseter and anterior temporalis muscles is altered by experimental right masseter muscle noxious stimulation during goal-directed isometric biting tasks in asymptomatic humans. METHODS: Isometric biting tasks (slow and fast ramp biting tasks, 2-step biting task) were performed on an intraoral force transducer in 18 participants during the following blocks: baseline block, hypertonic saline infusion into the right masseter muscle (painful block) and isotonic saline infusion into the right masseter (control block). Bipolar surface electrodes recorded EMG activity from the bilateral masseter and anterior temporalis muscles. A 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) quantified pain intensity, and the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) were completed. Repeated measures ANOVA assessed the effects of pain on the force rates (N/s), force amplitudes (N) and the root mean square (RMS) jaw muscle EMG activity across blocks. Statistical significance accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: VAS scores were significantly (P < 0.001) higher during hypertonic than isotonic saline infusion blocks. There was no significant effect of pain on the force rates, or force levels or the RMS EMG activity of each masseter and anterior temporalis muscle. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that experimentally induced right masseter muscle pain does not modify force or surface jaw muscle EMG activity during isometric biting tasks.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".