Examining Muscle Activity Differences During Single and Dual Vector Elastic Resistance Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Elastic resistance exercise is a common part of rehabilitation programs. While these exercises are highly prevalent, little information exists on how adding an additional resistance vector with a different direction from the primary vector alters muscle activity of the upper extremity. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of dual vector exercises on torso and upper extremity muscle activity in comparison to traditional single vector techniques. STUDY DESIGN: Repeated measures design. METHODS: Sixteen healthy university-aged males completed four common shoulder exercises against elastic resistance (abduction, flexion, internal rotation, external rotation) while using a single or dual elastic vector at a fixed cadence and standardized elastic elongation. Surface electromyography was collected from 16 muscles of the right upper extremity. Mean, peak and integrated activity were extracted from linear enveloped and normalized data and a 2-way repeated measures ANOVA examined differences between conditions. RESULTS: All independent variables differentially influenced activation. Interactions between single/dual vectors and exercise type affected mean activation in 11/16 muscles, while interactions in peak activation existed in 7/16 muscles. Adding a secondary vector increased activation predominantly in flexion or abduction exercises; little changes existed when adding a second vector in internal and external rotation exercises. The dual vector exercise in abduction significantly increased mean activation in lower trapezius by 25.6 ± 8.11 %MVC and peak activation in supraspinatus by 29.4 ± 5.94 %MVC (p<0.01). Interactions between single/dual vectors and exercise type affected integrated electromyography for most muscles; the majority of these muscles had the highest integrated electromyography in the dual vector abduction condition. CONCLUSION: Muscle activity often increased with a second resistance vector added; however, the magnitude was exercise-dependent. The majority of these changes existed in the flexion and abduction exercises, with little differences in the internal or external rotation exercises. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
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".