Pharmacological blockade of muscle afferents and perception of effort: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The perception of effort (PE) provides information on task difficulty and influences physical exercise regulation and human behavior. This perception differs from other-exercise related perceptions such as pain. There is no consensus on the role of group III-IV muscle afferents as a signal processed by the brain to generate PE. Objective The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of pharmacologically blocking muscle afferents on the PE. Methods Six databases were searched to identify studies measuring the ratings of perceived effort (RPE) during physical exercise, with and without pharmacological blockade of muscle afferents. Articles were coded based on the operational measurement used to distinguish studies in which PE was assessed specifically ( effort dissociated ) or as a composite experience including other exercise-related perceptions ( effort not dissociated ). Articles that did not provide enough information for coding were assigned to the unclear group. Results The effort dissociated group ( n =6) demonstrated a slight RPE increase with reduced muscle afferents feedback (standard mean change raw (SMCR), 0.39; 95%CI, 0.13 to 0.64). The group effort not dissociated ( n =2) did not reveal conclusive results (SMCR, −0.29; 95%CI, −2.39 to 1.8). The group unclear ( n =8) revealed a slight RPE decrease with reduced muscle afferents feedback (SMCR, −0.27; 95%CI, −0.50 to −0.04). Conclusions The heterogeneity in results between groups reveals that the inclusion of perceptions other than effort in its rating influences the RPE scores reported by the participants. The absence of decreased RPE in the effort dissociated group suggests that muscle afferents feedback is not a sensory signal of PE. Key points To date, there is no consensus on the neurophysiological signal processed by the brain to generate the perception of effort. Following a systematic search in six databases, this meta-analysis suggests that reducing afferent feedback from the working muscles via epidural anesthesia does not reduce perception of effort. This systematic review suggests that afferent feedback from the working muscles is not the neurophysiological signal processed by the brain to generate the perception of effort.
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 | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".