The mechanics of agonistic muscles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we tested two assumptions that have been made in experimental studies on muscle mechanics: (i) that the torque-angle properties are similar among agonistic muscles crossing a joint, and (ii) that the sum of the torque capacity of individual muscles adds up to the torque capacity of the agonist group. METHODS: Maximum isometric torque measurements were made using a specifically designed animal knee extension dynamometer for the intact rabbit quadriceps muscles (n = 10) for knee angles between 60 and 120°. The nerve branches of the vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM) and rectus femoris (RF) muscles were carefully dissected, and a custom made nerve cuff electrode was implanted on each branch. Knee extensor torques were measured for four maximal activation conditions at each knee angle: VL activation, VM activation, RF activation, and activation of all three muscles together. RESULTS: With the exception of VL, the torque-angle relationships of the individual muscles did not have the shape of the torque-angle relationship obtained when all muscles were activated simultaneously. Furthermore, the maximum torque capacity obtained by adding the individual torque capacities of VL, VM and RF was approximately 20% higher than the torques produced when the three muscles were activated simultaneously. DISCUSSION: These results bring into question our understanding of in-vivo muscle contraction and challenge assumptions that are sometimes made in human and animal muscle force analyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".