Exhausting repetitive piano tasks lead to local forearm manifestation of muscle fatigue and negatively affect musical parameters
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it