Does postactivation potentiation (PAP) increase voluntary performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transient increase in torque of an electrically evoked twitch following a voluntary contraction is called postactivation potentiation (PAP). Phosphorylation of myosin regulatory light chains is the most accepted mechanism explaining the enhanced electrically evoked twitch torque. While many authors attribute voluntary postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) to the positive effects of PAP, few actually confirmed that contraction was indeed potentiated using electrical stimulation (twitch response) at the time that PAPE was measured. Thus, this review aims to investigate if increases in voluntary performance after a conditioning contraction (CC) are related to the PAP phenomenon. For this, studies that confirmed the presence of PAP through an evoked response after a voluntary CC and concurrently evaluated PAPE were reviewed. Some studies reported increases in PAPE when PAP reaches extremely high values. However, PAPE has also been reported when PAP was not present, and unchanged/diminished performance has been identified when PAP was present. This range of observations demonstrates that mechanisms of PAPE are different from mechanisms of PAP. These mechanisms of PAPE still need to be understood and those studying PAPE should not assume that regulatory light chain phosphorylation is the mechanism for such enhanced voluntary performance. Novelty The occurrence of PAP does not necessarily mean that the voluntary performance will be improved. Improvement in voluntary performance is sometimes observed when the PAP level reaches extremely high values. Other mechanisms may be more relevant than that for PAP in the manifestation of acute increases in performance following a conditioning contraction.
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) | 0.001 | 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".