Using Motor Imagery Training to Increase Quadriceps Strength: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Motor imagery training implements neural adaptation theory to improve muscle strength without physically performing muscle contractions. To date, motor imagery training research regarding the efficacy of improving torque of the quadriceps over a brief training period is limited. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> To determine the impact of a 3-week motor imagery training on peak torque during knee extension. <b><i>Method:</i></b> Ten young, healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups over a 3-week period: strength training, motor imagery training and control. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Following training, an increase in peak torque was observed in all strength training participants (mean change of 38 ± 15%) and in 2 members of the motor imagery training group (45 ± 10%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Brief periods of motor imagery training may have the potential to improve quadriceps strength; however, more research is needed with larger populations to test this hypothesis.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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 it