Reduced isometric knee extensor force following anodal transcranial direct current stimulation of the ipsilateral motor cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The goal of this study was to determine if 10-min of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) to the motor cortex (M1) is capable of modulating quadriceps isometric maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force or fatigue endurance contralateral or ipsilateral to the stimulation site. Results: The main finding of this study was a significant interaction effect for stimulation condition x leg tested x time [F(1,60) =7.156, p = 0.010, ηp2 = 0.11] which revealed significant absolute KE MVC force impairments in the contralateral leg following s-tDCS (p < 0.001, d =1.2) and in the ipsilateral leg following a-tDCS (p < 0.001, d = 1.09). A significant interaction effect for condition x leg tested [F(1,56) = 8.12, p = 0.006, ηp2 = 0.13], showed a significantly lower left quadriceps (ipsilateral to tDCS) relative MVC force with a-tDCS, versus s-tDCS [t(15) = -3.07, p = 0.016, d = -0.77]. There was no significant difference between the relative right quadriceps (contralateral to tDCS) MVC force for a-tDCS and s-tDCS. Although, there was an overall significant [F(1,56) = 8.36, p < 0.001] 12.1% force decrease between the first and twelfth MVC repetitions, there were no significant main or interaction effects for fatigue index force. Conclusion: Hence, a-tDCS may be ineffective at increasing maximal force or endurance and instead may be detrimental to quadriceps force production.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".