MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091828946 · doi:10.1111/sms.13842

Influence of isometric training at short and long muscle‐tendon unit lengths on the history dependence of force

2020· article· en· W3091828946 on OpenAlexafffund
Avery Hinks, Brooke Davidson, Ryota Akagi, Geoffrey A. Power

Bibliographic record

VenueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsIsometric exerciseFascicleMuscle architecturePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePlantar flexionAnatomyMuscle contractionPhysical therapyAnkle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history dependence of force is an intrinsic property of muscle whereby a muscle actively shortened or lengthened to an isometric steady‐state produces less (residual force depression; rFD) or more force (residual force enhancement; rFE), respectively, than a purely isometric contraction at the same muscle length and level of activation. Previous studies on the modifiability of the history dependence of force have been inconclusive, and none have attempted to modify rFD and rFE through isometric resistance training biased to short vs long muscle‐tendon unit (MTU) lengths. We tested maximal voluntary rFD and rFE in seven males and six females before and after 8 weeks of maximal isometric dorsiflexion training 3 days/wk. Participants trained one leg at 0° of plantar flexion (short‐MTU training) and one at 40° of plantar flexion (long‐MTU training). Ultrasonography of the tibialis anterior assessed resting muscle architecture. Tibialis anterior fascicle length decreased by ~3% following short‐MTU training (P = .03) and increased by ~4% following long‐MTU training (P = .01). rFD did not change following training at either MTU length (absolute rFD: P = .53; percent rFD: P = .51), nor did rFE (absolute rFE: P = .78; percent rFE: P = .80), with no relationships between the change in fascicle length and the change in percent rFD (R2 = .01, P = .62) nor rFE (R2 = .001, P = .88). Our data indicate that voluntary rFD and rFE were not modified by isometric training and not related to the fascicle length adaptations we observed.

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 score0.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in SportsSame topicMuscle activation and electromyography studiesFrench-language works237,207