History-dependent muscle resistance to stretch remains high after small, posturally relevant pre-movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contributions of intrinsic muscle fiber resistance during mechanical perturbations to standing and other postural behaviors are unclear. Muscle short-range stiffness is known to vary depending on the current level and history of the muscle's activation, as well as the muscle's recent movement history; this property has been referred to as history dependence or muscle thixotropy. However, we currently lack sufficient data about the degree to which muscle stiffness is modulated across posturally relevant characteristics of muscle stretch and activation. We characterized the history dependence of muscle's resistance to stretch in single, permeabilized, activated, muscle fibers in posturally relevant stretch conditions and activation levels. We used a classic paired muscle stretch paradigm, varying the amplitude of a 'conditioning' triangular stretch-shorten cycle followed by a 'test' ramp-and-hold imposed after a variable inter-stretch interval. We tested low (<15%), intermediate (15-50%) and high (>50%) muscle fiber activation levels, evaluating short-range stiffness and total impulse in the test stretch. Muscle fiber resistance to stretch remained high at conditioning amplitudes of <1% optimal fiber length, L0, and inter-stretch intervals of >1 s, characteristic of healthy standing postural sway. An ∼70% attenuation of muscle resistance to stretch was reached at conditioning amplitudes of >3% L0 and inter-stretch intervals of <0.1 s, characteristic of larger, faster postural sway in balance-impaired individuals. The thixotropic changes cannot be predicted solely on muscle force at the time of stretch. Consistent with the disruption of muscle cross-bridges, muscle resistance to stretch during behavior can be substantially attenuated if the prior motion is large enough and/or frequent enough.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".