Electrically Evoked Isotonic Plantar Flexion Contractions Are Impaired Less than Voluntary After a Dynamic Fatiguing Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evaluating central and peripheral processes responsible for reduced power after dynamic fatiguing tasks are often limited to isometric torque, which may not accurately reflect dynamic contractile performance. Here, we compare voluntary and electrically evoked peak power (and its determinants: dynamic torque and velocity) and rate of velocity development (RVD) before and after a dynamic fatiguing task using concentric Plantar flexion contractions. METHODS: Young (18-32 yr) males ( n = 11) and females ( n = 2) performed maximal-effort isotonic Plantar flexion contractions using a load of 20% isometric torque until an approximately 75% reduction in peak power. Voluntary and electrically evoked (300 Hz tibial nerve stimulation) contractions loaded to 20% and 40% isometric torque through 25° ankle joint range of motion were compared before and 0, 2.5, 5, and 10 min after task termination. RESULTS: At task termination, peak power and RVD of voluntary contractions at both loads were reduced more (~40% to 50% reduction) than electrically evoked (~25% to 35% reduction) contractions ( P < 0.001 and P = 0.003). Throughout the recovery period, electrically evoked peak power and RVD returned to baseline sooner (<5 min) than voluntary contractions, which were still depressed at 10 min. Reductions in peak power for the 20% load were equally due to impaired dynamic torque and velocity, whereas velocity was impaired more than dynamic torque ( P < 0.001) for the 40% load. CONCLUSIONS: The relative preservation of electrically evoked power and RVD compared with voluntary contractions at task termination and quicker recovery to baseline indicates that the reductions in dynamic contractile performance after task termination are due to both central and peripheral processes; however, the relative contribution of dynamic torque and velocity is load dependent.
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) | 0.001 | 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".