Cosine tuning determines plantarflexors' activities during human upright standing and is affected by incomplete spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plantarflexors such as the soleus (SOL) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) play key roles in controlling bipedal stance; however, how the central nervous system controls the activation levels of these plantarflexors is not well understood. Here we investigated how the central nervous system controls the plantarflexors' activation level during quiet standing in a cosine tuning manner where the maximal activation is achieved in a preferred direction (PD). Further, we investigated how spinal cord injury affects these plantarflexors' activations. Thirteen healthy adults (AB) and thirteen individuals with chronic, incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) performed quiet standing trials. Their body kinematics, kinetics as well as electromyography signals from the MG and SOL were recorded. In the AB-group, we found that the plantarflexors followed the cosine tuning manner during quiet standing. That is, MG was most active when the ratio of plantarflexion torque to knee extension torque was approximately 2:-3, while SOL was most active when the ratio was approximately 2:1. This suggests that the SOL muscle despite being a monoarticular muscle is sensitive to both ankle plantarflexion and knee extension during quiet standing. The difference in the PDs accounts for the phasic activity of MG and for the tonic activity of SOL. Unlike the AB-group, the MG's activity was similar to the SOL's activity in the iSCI-group, and the SOL PDs were similar to the ones in the AB-group. This result suggests that chronic iSCI affects the control strategy, i.e., cosine tuning, for MG, which may affect standing balance in individuals with iSCI.
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) | 0.001 | 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".