Mechanisms of neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in unilateral versus bilateral maximal voluntary contractions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate differences in neuromuscular function and corticospinal excitability in response to sustained unilateral (UNIL) and bilateral (BIL) isometric maximal voluntary contraction (IMVC) of the knee extensors. Eleven men performed a 1-min sustained IMVC of the knee extensors with one or both legs. Central and peripheral measures of neuromuscular function and corticospinal excitability were assessed via surface electromyography (EMG), peripheral nerve stimulation, and transcranial magnetic stimulation before, immediately after, and during recovery from IMVC. IMVC force and root-mean-squared EMG decreased during the fatiguing 1-min IMVC, with a larger decrease in EMG during BIL. All neuromuscular function indexes decreased significantly after the IMVC ( P < 0.005), but the magnitude of these decreases did not differ between conditions. Changes in corticospinal excitability (motor evoked potential) and inhibition (silent period) did not differ between conditions. In contrast to previous studies utilizing submaximal exercise, no more peripheral fatigue was found after UNIL vs. BIL conditions, even though central drive was lower after BIL 1-min IMVC. Corticospinal excitability and inhibition were not found to be different between UNIL and BIL conditions, in line with maximal voluntary activation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The present experiment used peripheral nerve stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulations during a sustained isometric maximal voluntary contraction to investigate the influence of muscle mass on neuromuscular fatigue. Contrary to previous studies that used submaximal exercise, peripheral fatigue was not found to be greater in unilateral vs. bilateral knee extensions even though central drive was lower during bilateral contractions. Corticospinal excitability and inhibition were not found to be different between unilateral and bilateral conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".