Heating the Skin Over the Knee Improves Kinesthesia During Knee Extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine how heating affects dynamic joint position sense at the knee, participants (n = 11; F = 6) were seated in a HUMAC NORM dynamometer. The leg was passively moved through extension and flexion, and participants indicated when the 90° reference position was perceived, both at baseline (28.74 ± 2.43 °C) and heated (38.05 ± 0.16 °C) skin temperatures. Day 2 of testing reduced knee skin feedback with lidocaine. Directional error (actual leg angle-target angle) and absolute error (AE) were calculated. Heating reduced extension AE (baseline AE = 5.46 ± 2.39°, heat AE = 4.10 ± 1.97°), but not flexion. Lidocaine did not significantly affect flexion AE or extension AE. Overall, increased anterior knee-skin temperature improves dynamic joint position sense during passive knee extension, where baseline matching is poorer. Limited application of lidocaine to the anterior thigh, reducing some skin input, did not influence dynamic joint position sense, suggesting cutaneous receptors may play only a secondary role to spindle information during kinesthetic tasks. Importantly, cutaneous input from adjacent thigh regions cannot be ruled out as a contributor.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".