Exhausting repetitive piano tasks lead to local forearm manifestation of muscle fatigue and negatively affect musical parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Muscle fatigue is considered as a risk factor for developing playing-related muscular disorders among professional pianists and could affect musical performance. This study investigated in 50 pianists the effect of fatiguing repetitive piano sequences on the development of forearm muscle fatigue and on piano performance parameters. Results showed signs of myoelectric manifestation of fatigue in the 42-electromyographic bipolar electrodes positioned on the forearm to record finger and wrist flexor and extensor muscles, through a significant non-constant decrease of instantaneous median frequency during two repetitive Digital (right-hand 16-tones sequence) and Chord (right-hand chords sequence) excerpts, with extensor muscles showing greater signs of fatigue than flexor muscles. In addition, muscle fatigue negatively affected key velocity, a central feature of piano sound intensity, in both Digital and Chord excerpts, and note-events, a fundamental aspect of musicians' performance parameter, in the Chord excerpt only. This result highlights that muscle fatigue may alter differently pianists' musical performance according to the characteristics of the piece played.
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) | 0.003 | 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".