Sex differences in the effect of muscle fatigue on static postural control under different vision and task conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to compare the effects of ankle plantar flexors fatigue on postural control between healthy young adult males and females. The secondary aim was to determine the effects of vision on the fatigue-induced postural changes. Ten healthy young males and nine females were asked to perform quiet standing (QS) and standing forward lean (FL) tasks with eyes open (EO) and closed (EC) before and immediately following exercise, and throughout a 15-min recovery period. A sustained isometric exercise of ankle plantar flexors was performed until participants were no longer able to maintain a target torque of 50% of maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC). Mean anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) positions of the center of pressure (COP), mean COP sway velocity, and 95% ellipse area of COP sway were measured. Ankle plantar flexors fatigue had significant effects on all dependent variables, except for sway area. A fatigue X sex interaction was found for sway velocity with the most challenging task condition (FL-EC), where males showed a significant increase in sway velocity up to 15 min following exercise, whereas females did not. Fatigue X vision interactions for AP position were also found, with the withdrawal of vision leading to a greater backward shift during recovery for both the QS (5 to 15 min) and FL (5 to 10 min) tasks. Our findings suggest the use of different postural control strategies with ankle fatigue between males and females, and also a contribution of vision to compensate for fatigue-induced instability that is not dependent on task difficulty.
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) | 0.003 | 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".