Sustained submaximal isometric wrist flexion and wrist extension contractions uniquely impair maximal voluntary contraction force in the antagonist wrist action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When fatigued, the wrist extensors, which are the primary wrist stabilizers, impair distal upper limb motor performance in a surprisingly similar way as when fatiguing the wrist flexors. It is possible that the wrist extensors are so active as antagonists that they develop an equal degree of fatigue during wrist flexion contractions, making it difficult to truly isolate their impact on performance. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine how wrist flexion/extension forces are impaired following either agonist or antagonist sustained submaximal wrist contractions. 13 male participants attended four laboratory sessions. In these sessions, fatigue was induced via a sustained submaximal isometric contraction of either wrist flexion or extension. These contractions were held for up to 10 min at 20% of the participant's baseline maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force. Throughout the sustained contraction, intermittent agonist (matching the sustained contraction) or antagonist (opposing the sustained contraction) MVCs were performed. Unsurprisingly, agonist MVC forces decreased significantly more than antagonist (Agonist: 58.5%, Antagonist: 86.5% of MVC, P < 0.001). However, while there were no differences in antagonist wrist extension and flexion MVC decreases (Wrist Flexion: 87.5%, Wrist Extension: 85.5%, P = 0.41), wrist extension MVCs did decrease significantly more than wrist flexion MVCs when forces were expressed relative to the agonist (P = 0.036). These findings partially support the hypothesis that the wrist extensors may be more susceptible to developing fatigue when functioning as antagonists than the wrist flexors. This work will help equip future research into the motor control of the upper limb and the prevention of forearm-related musculoskeletal disorders.
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) | 0.003 | 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".