Electromyographic Comparison of Grand Battement Devant at the Barre, in the Center, and Traveling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined utilization of the trunk and lower extremity muscles during grand battement devant in three conditions: at the barre (supported stationary condition in 1st position), in the center (unsupported stationary condition in 1st position), and traveling through space. Forty dancers (age 30.0 ± 13.0 yrs, height 1.63 ± 0.06 m, weight 59.0 ± 7.4 kg, and 13.9 ± 13.3 yrs of training in ballet and/or modern dance) volunteered and were placed in three skill level groups: beginner (n = 12), intermediate (n = 14), and advanced (n = 14). Dancers executed five grand battement devant in each of the three conditions in randomized order. We examined muscle activation bilaterally in eight muscles (abdominals, abductor hallucis, erector spinae, gastrocnemius, gluteus maximus, hamstrings, quadriceps, and tibialis anterior) using surface electromyography, a three-dimensional video biomechanical tracking system to identify events, and force plates. All data were analyzed in four events: stance, initiation, peak, and end. Analysis was done using a linear mixed effects regression model with condition, event, muscle, level, and side as the fixed effects, and subject as the random effect. There were significant effects for muscle x event x condition (p<0.01) and for level x side x muscle (p<0.01). Muscle use varied according to the combination of event and condition that was executed, and these differences were also influenced by the level of training of the dancer and the side of the body used. It is recommended that dance educators consider the importance of allocating sufficient time to each of the three conditions (barre, center, and traveling) to ensure development of a variety of motor strategies and muscle activation levels for dance practice.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".