The stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) revisited: residual force enhancement contributes to increased performance during fast SSCs of human m. adductor pollicis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) occurs in most everyday movements, and is thought to provoke a performance enhancement of the musculoskeletal system. However, mechanisms of this performance enhancement remain a matter of debate. One proposed mechanism is associated with a stretch-induced increase in steady-state force, referred to as residual force enhancement (RFE). As yet, direct evidence relating RFE to increased force/work during SSCs is missing. Therefore, forces of electrically stimulated m. adductor pollicis (n = 14 subjects) were measured during and after pure stretch, pure shortening, and stretch-shortening contractions with varying shortening amplitudes. Active stretch (30°, x = 161 6°s 1) caused significant RFE (16%, P < 0.01), whereas active shortening (10°, 20°, and 30°; x = 103 3°s 1, 152 5°s 1, and 170 5°s 1) resulted in significant force depression (9–15%, P < 0.01). In contrast, after SSCs (that is when active stretch preceded active shortening) no force depression was found. Indeed for our specific case in which the shortening amplitude was only 1/3 of the lengthening amplitude, there was a remnant RFE (10%, P < 0.01) following the active shortening. This result indicates that the RFE generated during lengthening affected force depression when active lengthening was followed by active shortening. As conventional explanations, such as the storage and release of elastic energy, cannot explain the enhanced steady-state force after SSCs, it appears that the stretch-induced RFE is not immediately abolished during shortening and contributes to the increased force and work during SSCs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".