Electrical stimulation to promote muscle and motor unit force and endurance after spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatigue is a common feature of paralysed skeletal muscle, hindering performance when subjected to functional electrical stimulation (ES) for movement. We asked whether (1) 20 Hz ES for 5% of each day (2.5 s on and 2.5 s off for 3 h) increases tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius muscle and motor unit (MU) endurance after paralysis by hemisection and deafferentation (HSDA), and (2) muscle length or loading affects their isometric contractile properties. The daily 5% ES increased muscle endurance, largely independent of muscle length or loading, but to a lesser extent than the daily 50% ES (2.5 s on and 2.5 s off for 24 h). The former was effective in counteracting the decline and slowing of muscle force promoted by the 50% ES. The altered muscle properties were confirmed at the MU level in final experiments once the properties had plateaued. Fast-fatigable MUs were converted to fatigue-intermediate and -resistant MUs that finally comprised ∼80% as compared to ∼10% of the total MU number in the daily 5% ES and the control normal groups, respectively. We conclude that the daily 5% ES regimen counteracts the fatigue of paralysed muscle without compromising contractile force, and thereby, is effective in conditioning muscle for effective movement. KEY POINTS: We asked whether 20 Hz electrical stimulation (ES) for 5% of each day (2.5 s on and 2.5 s off for 3 h; 5% ES) preserves medial gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior muscle and MU isometric contractile forces and increases their endurance after paralysis. Daily 5% ES promoted increased muscle endurance irrespective of the muscle length or loading but to a lesser extent than daily 50% ES (20 Hz ES 2.5 s on and 2.5 s off for 24 h). 5% ES was effective in counteracting decline and slowing of muscle force that resulted from 50% ES. Motor units (MUs) were converted from fast fatigable to fatigue intermediate and resistant MUs, comprising ∼80% as compared to ∼10% in the control normal groups. We conclude that the 5% ES regimen counteracts the fatigue of paralysed muscle without compromising contractile force, and thereby is effective in conditioning the muscle for effective movement.
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) | 0.001 | 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".