Metabolic cost underlies task-dependent variations in motor unit recruitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian skeletal muscles are comprised of many motor units, each containing a group of muscle fibres that have common contractile properties: these can be broadly categorized as slow and fast twitch muscle fibres. Motor units are typically recruited in an orderly fashion following the 'size principle', in which slower motor units would be recruited for low intensity contraction; a metabolically cheap and fatigue-resistant strategy. However, this recruitment strategy poses a mechanical paradox for fast, low intensity contractions, in which the recruitment of slower fibres, as predicted by the size principle, would be metabolically more costly than the recruitment of faster fibres that are more efficient at higher contraction speeds. Hence, it would be mechanically and metabolically more effective for recruitment strategies to vary in response to contraction speed so that the intrinsic efficiencies and contraction speeds of the recruited muscle fibres are matched to the mechanical demands of the task. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of a novel, mixed cost function within a musculoskeletal simulation, which includes the metabolic cost of contraction, to predict the recruitment of different muscle fibre types across a range of loads and speeds. Our results show that a metabolically informed cost function predicts favoured recruitment of slower muscle fibres for slower and isometric tasks versus recruitment that favours faster muscles fibres for higher velocity contractions. This cost function predicts a change in recruitment patterns consistent with experimental observations, and also predicts a less expensive metabolic cost for these muscle contractions regardless of speed of the movement. Hence, our findings support the premise that varying motor recruitment strategies to match the mechanical demands of a movement task results in a mechanically and metabolically sensible way to deploy the different types of motor unit.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".