Shoulder muscle fatigue does not influence hand proprioception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle fatigue is a complex phenomenon that can alter afferent feedback from muscles. It is unclear how proximal muscle fatigue can affect proprioceptive acuity of the distal limb. The goal of the present study was to assess the effects of shoulder muscle fatigue on participants' ability to judge the location of their hand using only proprioceptive cues. Participants' (N = 16) limbs were passively moved outwards by a robot manipulandum and they were instructed to estimate the position of their limb relative to one of four visual targets (two near targets at 10 cm, and two far targets at 20 cm). This estimation task was completed before and after a repetitive pointing task to fatigue (mean performance time: 6 minutes). To assess central and peripheral effects of fatigue, the right arm was fatigued and proprioceptive biases of the left and right hands were determined on different days. Proprioceptive biases and the variability of participants' responses did not change following the fatiguing protocol for either the right or left hand. Similar to previous research (Jones et al, 2010), the results showed that proprioceptive biases differed between hands but not with changes in target distance. Thus, results suggest that proximal muscle fatigue does not affect hand proprioceptive acuity.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".