Neck Muscle Vibration Alters Upper Limb Proprioception as Demonstrated by Changes in Accuracy and Precision during an Elbow Repositioning Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper limb control depends on accurate internal models of limb position relative to the head and neck, accurate sensory inputs, and accurate cortical processing. Transient alterations in neck afferent feedback induced by muscle vibration may impact upper limb proprioception. This research aimed to determine the effects of neck muscle vibration on upper limb proprioception using a novel elbow repositioning task (ERT). 26 right-handed participants aged 22.21 ± 2.64 performed the ERT consisting of three target angles between 80−90° (T1), 90−100° (T2) and 100−110° (T3). Controls (CONT) (n = 13, 6F) received 10 min of rest and the vibration group (VIB) (n = 13, 6F) received 10 min of 60 Hz vibration over the right sternocleidomastoid and left cervical extensor muscles. Task performance was reassessed following experimental manipulation. Significant time by group interactions occurred for T1: (F1,24 = 25.330, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.513) where CONT improved by 26.08% and VIB worsened by 134.27%, T2: (F1,24 = 16.157, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.402) where CONT improved by 20.39% and VIB worsened by 109.54%, and T3: (F1,24 = 21.923, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.447) where CONT improved by 37.11% and VIB worsened by 54.39%. Improvements in repositioning accuracy indicates improved proprioceptive ability with practice in controls. Decreased accuracy following vibration suggests that vibration altered proprioceptive inputs used to construct body schema, leading to inaccurate joint position sense and the observed changes in elbow repositioning accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".