Arm function and muscle activity responses after using the Kinesio taping inhibitory technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims at showing the effects in muscle activity and arm function under the influence of the inhibitory muscle technique of the Kinesio tape method in healthy muscles. Methods Overall, 20 apparently healthy subjects underwent the procedures 3 times, in 3 different tape conditions: no tape, Kinesio tape, and non-elastic tape. The muscle activity was obtained in millivolts through electromyography on biceps brachii and deltoid during 3 specific tasks, and the arm function was determined in seconds with the Action Research Arm Test, a standardized tool conceived to assess upper extremity function, divided into the subscales of grasp, grip, pinch, and gross movement. Results The electromyography results and most of the Action Research Arm Test dimensions did not show any statistically significant differences in any comparison (p > 0.05) between the tape conditions. However, there could be a tendency to perform movements faster under the influence of the Kinesio tape, as implied in the dimensions of grip (p = 0.01) and total (p = 0.04) of the Action Research Arm Test. Conclusions The Kinesio tape inhibitory muscle technique and tape conditions did not evoke significant effects in muscle activity or arm function in apparently healthy muscles.
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) | 0.001 | 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".