MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012218755 · doi:10.1152/jn.00650.2019

Plantarflexion force is amplified with sensory stimulation during ramping submaximal isometric contractions

2020· article· en· W3012218755 on OpenAlexafffund
Gregory E. P. Pearcey, Yao Sun, E. Paul Zehr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIsometric exerciseSensory systemStimulationSensory stimulation therapyReflexPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSensationPhysical StimulationPsychologyContraction (grammar)NeuroscienceMedicinePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stimulating cutaneous nerves, causing tactile sensations, reduces the perceived heaviness of an object, suggesting that either descending commands are facilitated or the perception of effort is reduced when tactile sensation is enhanced. Sensory stimulation can also mitigate decrements in motor output and spinal cord excitability that occur with fatigue. The effects of sensory stimulation applied with coincident timing of voluntary force output, however, are yet to be examined. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine effects of sensory enhancement to nerves innervating opposed skin areas of the foot (top or bottom) on force production during voluntary plantarflexion or dorsiflexion contractions. Stimulation trains were applied for 2 s at either a uniform 150 Hz or a modulated frequency that increased linearly from 50 to 150 Hz and were delivered at the initiation of the contraction. Participants were instructed to perform a ramp contraction [~10% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC)/s] to ~20% MVC and then to hold ~20% MVC for 2 s while receiving real-time visual feedback. Cutaneous reflexes were evoked 75 ms after initiating the hold (75 ms after sensory enhancement ended). Force output was greater for all sensory-enhanced conditions compared with control during plantarflexion; however, force output was not amplified during dorsiflexion. Cutaneous reflexes evoked after sensory enhancement were unaltered. These results indicate that sensory enhancement can amplify plantarflexion but not dorsiflexion, likely as a result of differences in neuroanatomical projections to the flexor and extensor motor pools. Further work is required to elucidate the mechanisms of enhanced force during cutaneous stimulation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY The efficacy of behaviorally timed sensory stimulation to enhance sensations and amplify force output has not been examined. Here we show cutaneous nerve sensory stimulation can amplify plantarflexion force output. This amplification in force occurs irrespective of whether the cutaneous field that is stimulated resides on the surface that is producing the force or the opposing surface. This information may provide insights for the development of technologies to improve performance and/or rehabilitation training.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurophysiology→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→