MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Characterizing Motor Unit Firing Rates In The Vastus Intermedius In Humans

2024· article· en· W4402662284 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Fanous, Alexander M. Zero, Michael T. Paris, Charles L. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMotor unitNeuroscienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuromuscular properties have been well-studied in three of the four muscles of the quadriceps femoris. Lack of accessibility of the vastus intermedius (VI) due to its deep location likely has precluded comprehensive insight on motor unit (MU) properties. The VI is a major component of the quadriceps comprising ~50% of its muscle volume and potentially contributing ~50% of the torque during knee extension. However, it is unknown whether the VI has similar MU properties to the more comprehensively studied other two main knee extensors – the vastus lateralis (VL) and vastus medialis (VM). Because of the greater slow twitch fibre percentage in the VI (~60%) compared with the VL and VM (~50%), MU properties may be unique. PURPOSE: Thus, the purpose here was to compare specifically the MU firing rates (MUFR) of the VI and VL during varying intensities of knee extension. METHODS: Participants (3 males; 1 female) aged 20-29y were recruited. In a Humac Norm dynamometer knee extension torque was measured from brief (~5 s) isometric maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) levels, and at 10%, 25%, and 50% of MVC. Percutaneous electric stimulation was used to assess voluntary activation (VA) using the interpolated twitch method. Tungsten needles (ultrasound guided) were used to record MUFR from the VI and VL during repeated non-fatiguing contractions at each of the four contraction levels. RESULTS: Maximal knee extension torque was 492.5 ± 232.4 N with VA of over 90%. A total of 235 MUs were sampled with equal numbers from both muscles. At 10% MVC, MUFR ranged from 5-9 Hz (mean 7.26 ± 1.12 Hz) in the VL and 4-8 Hz in the VI (mean 6.69 ± 1.55 Hz). At 25% VL ranged from 4-12 Hz (mean 8.03 ± 1.68) and VI ranged from 5-11 Hz (mean 8.91 ± 1.54 Hz). At 50% VL ranged from 9-13 Hz (mean 11.3 ± 1.22 Hz) and VI from 8-15 Hz (mean 11.7 ± 2.08 Hz). At MVC rates ranged from 15-24 Hz in the VL (mean 19.3 ± 2.79 Hz) and 15-26 Hz in the VI (mean 19.5 ± 2.91 Hz). There were no mean differences at any force level (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite the VI having a greater slow twitch composition compared to the other quadriceps muscles and contributing a significant portion of torque generation during knee extension, MUFR are not different than the VL. In addition to characterizing the VI, we demonstrate the accessibility of the VI with intramuscular recordings. Supported by NSERC. NSERC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→