Regional Electromyography of the Infraspinatus and Supraspinatus Muscles During Standing Isometric External Rotation Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Whole-muscle electromyography (EMG) data of the rotator cuff support external rotation (ER) strengthening exercises during shoulder rehabilitation. However, distinct neuroanatomic regions in the supraspinatus and infraspinatus exist. Differences in regional muscle activity occur during rehabilitation exercises, but little information is available for ER exertions. Hypothesis: Regional infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscle activity during standing ER exertions will differ with posture and intensity. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Methods: Twenty healthy individuals (12 men, 8 women) participated. Fine wire electrodes were inserted into 2 supraspinatus and 3 infraspinatus muscle regions. EMG data were recorded during standing isometric ER exertions at 2 intensities (maximal, submaximal) and in 7 postures defined by the angle (0°, 30°, 90°) and plane (abduction, scaption, flexion) of arm elevation. EMG data were normalized to maximum voluntary isometric contraction (% MVIC) to examine the influences of posture, intensity and their interaction on muscle activity. Results: Superior infraspinatus activity was higher in 0° of elevation (50.9% ± 5.7% MVIC) versus 30° of flexion (37.4% ± 3.9% MVIC) at maximal intensity. Inferior infraspinatus activity was higher in 90° of scaption (max = 59.8% ± 2.8% MVIC, submax = 29.4% ± 1.9% MVIC) versus 0° of elevation (max = 42.3% ± 4.5% MVIC, submax = 22.4% ± 2.8% MVIC) ( P = 0.02, P = 0.05, respectively). Anterior supraspinatus activity was highest in 90° of adbuction (max = 61.6% ± 3.1% MVIC; submax = 39.1% ± 3.8% MVIC) and lowest in 30° of flexion (max = 29.0% ± 3.4% MVIC, submax = 15.6% ± 1.7% MVIC) and 90° of flexion (max = 34.6% ± 2.4% MVIC, submax = 14.8% ± 1.9% MVIC). Posterior suprasptinatus activity was lowest in 0° of elevation (34.2% ± 3.0% MVIC), 30° of flexion (33.0% ± 3.6% MVIC) and highest in 90° of abduction (56.2% ± 4.1% MVIC) and 90° of scaption (46.7% ± 2.8% MVIC) (all Ps < 0.04). Conclusion: Regional infraspinatus and supraspinatus muscle activity differed with posture and intensity. Superior and middle infraspinatus muscle activities were similar across postures, but inferior infraspinatus activity was highest in 90° of arm elevation. Anterior and posterior supraspinatus activities were higher in the abduction and scaption planes, especially at 90° of elevation, as compared with the flexion plane. Clinical Relevance: In shoulder rehabilitation of supraspinatus tendon injuries, ER exercises in the flexion plane challenge the whole infraspinatus muscle and require lower supraspinatus muscle activity.
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".