1894 revisited: Cross-education of skilled muscular control in women and the importance of representation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1894 foundational work showed that training one limb for "muscular power" (i.e. strength) or "muscular control" (i.e. skill) improves performance in both limbs. Despite that the original data were exclusively from two female participants ("Miss Smith" and "Miss Brown"), in the decades that followed, such "cross-education" training interventions have focused predominantly on improving strength in men. Here, in a female cohort, we revisit that early research to underscore that training a task that requires precise movements in a timely fashion (i.e. "muscular control") on one side of the body is transferred to the contralateral untrained limb. With unilateral practice, women reduced time to completion and the number of errors committed during the commercially available game of Operation® Iron Man 2 with both limbs. Modest reductions in bilateral Hoffmann (H-) reflex excitability evoked in the wrist flexors suggest that alterations in the spinal cord circuitry may be related to improvements in performance of a fine motor task. These findings provide a long overdue follow-up to the efforts of Miss Theodate L. Smith from more than 125 years ago, highlight the need to focus on female participants, and advocate more study of cross-education of skilled tasks.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".