MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993056171 · doi:10.1242/jeb.213843

Why do muscles lose torque potential when activated within their agonistic group?

2019· article· en· W2993056171 on OpenAlexafffund
Heiliane de Brito Fontana, Daiani de Campos, Andrew Sawatsky, Seong-won Han, Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersKillam TrustsCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsInternational Society of Biomechanics
KeywordsIsometric exerciseTorqueChemistryMoment (physics)AnatomyPhysicsMedicinePhysical therapyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agonistic muscles lose approximately 20% of their individual torque generating capacity when activated with their agonistic muscles compared to when stimulated in isolation. In this study, we (i) tested if this loss in torque was accompanied by a corresponding loss in force, thereby testing the potential role of changes in moment arms between conditions; (ii) removed all inter-muscular connections between the quadriceps muscles, thus determining the potential role of inter-muscular force transmission; and (iii) systematically changed the inter-muscular pressure by performing experiments at different activation/force levels, thereby exploring the possible role of inter-muscular pressure in the loss of torque capacity with simultaneous muscle activation. Experiments were performed in a New Zealand White rabbit quadriceps model (n=5). Torque and force were measured during activation of femoral nerve branches that supply the individual quadriceps muscles while activating these branches simultaneously and in isolation. Regardless of joint angle and inter-muscular connections between muscles, the differences in torque values between the simultaneous and the isolated activation of the quadriceps muscles were also observed for the directly measured force values. Mean differences in simultaneous and isolated muscle activation remained similar between the intact and separated conditions: torque difference (21±5% of maximum isometric torque of intact condition [MICtorque], versus 19±6% MICtorque respectively) and for force (18±3% MICforce versus 19±7% MICforce respectively). The absolute torque loss was independent of the force, and thus presumably the inter-muscular pressures. Based on these results, we conclude that neither moment arm, inter-muscular pressure nor inter-muscular force transmission seems to be the primary cause for the torque deficit observed during simultaneous compared to isolated muscle activation. The mechanisms underlying loss of force capacity during agonistic muscle contraction remain unknown.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207