MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3156188271 · doi:10.1101/2021.04.08.438966

Motor unit recruitment patterns of the quadriceps differ between continuous high- and low-torque isometric knee extension to momentary failure

2021· preprint· en· W3156188271 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Murphy, Emma Hodson‐Tole, Andrew D. Vigotsky, Jim R. Potvin, James Fisher, James Steele

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseVastus medialisElectromyographyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTask (project management)Motor unitMotor unit recruitmentTorqueMedicineMathematicsComputer sciencePhysical therapyAnatomyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The size principle is a theory of motor unit (MU) recruitment that suggests MUs are recruited in an orderly manner from the smallest (lower threshold) to the largest (higher threshold) MUs. A consequence of this biophysical theory is that, for isometric contractions, recruitment is dependent on the intensity of actual effort required to meet task demands. This concept has been supported by modelling work demonstrating that, in tasks performed to momentary failure, full MU recruitment will have occurred upon reaching failure irrespective of the force requirements of the task. However, in vivo studies examining this are limited. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine MU recruitment of the quadriceps under both higher- and lower-torque (70% and 30% of MVC, respectively) isometric knee extension, performed to momentary failure. Specifically, we compared surface electromyography (sEMG) frequency characteristics, determined by wavelet analysis, across the two continuous isometric knee extension tasks to identify potential differences in recruitment patterns. A convenience sample of 10 recreationally active adult males (height: 179.6±6.0 cm; mass: 76.8±7.3 kg; age: 26±7 years) with previous resistance training experience (6±3 years) were recruited. Using a within-session, repeated-measures, randomised crossover design participants performed the knee extension tasks whilst sEMG was collected from the vastus medialis (VM), rectus femoris (RF) and vastus lateralis (VL). Myoelectric signals were decomposed into intensities as a function of time and frequency using an EMG-specific wavelet transformation. Our first analysis compared the mean frequency at momentary failure; second, we investigated the effects of load on relative changes in wavelet intensities; finally, we quantified the degree of wavelet similarity over time. Wavelet-based calculation of the mean signal frequency appeared to show similar mean frequency characteristics occurring when reaching momentary failure. However, individual wavelets revealed that different changes in frequency components occurred between the two tasks, suggesting that patterns of recruitment differed. Low-torque conditions resulted in an increase in intensity of all frequency components across the trials for each muscle whereas high-torque conditions resulted in a wider range of frequency components contained within the myoelectric signals at the beginning of the trials. However, as the low-torque trial neared momentary failure there was an increased agreement between conditions across wavelets. Our results corroborate modelling studies as well as recent biopsy evidence, suggesting overall MU recruitment may largely be similar for isometric tasks performed to momentary failure with the highest threshold MUs likely recruited, despite being achieved with differences in the pattern of recruitment over time utilised.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→