ArticleExperimental brain research2014
The effects of massed versus distributed contractions on the variability of maximal isometric force.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of the Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation Contraction Sequence on Motor Skill Learning-Related Increases in the Maximal Rate of Wrist Flexion Torque Development.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- The cross education of strength and skill following unilateral strength training in the upper and lower limbs.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Article
- Task complexity and maximal isometric strength gains through motor learning.Physiological reports · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the effect of a massed versus distributed repetition schedule on the variability of force and surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity during maximal voluntary isometric elbow flexion contractions. The massed group (N = 13) performed 15 contractions on 1 day, while the distributed group (N = 13) performed 15 contractions across three consecutive days (five per day). Two retention tests (five contractions each) occurred 2 weeks and 3 months after the final trial of the initial test sessions. Force and sEMG of the biceps and triceps brachii muscles were recorded concurrently. Both groups had comparable increases in force and biceps brachii sEMG that continued over short- and longer-term retention tests (p < 0.05). Triceps brachii sEMG exhibited a more complicated pattern of successive decreases and increases (p < 0.05). The massed repetition schedule resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) less variability in maintaining a constant force [root mean square (RMS) error]. There was a significant decrease in the variability of the force-time and sEMG-time curves as assessed by the variance ratio (VR) (p < 0.05). Only biceps sEMG and VR correlated highly with force VR for the distributed group. Total (biceps + triceps) sEMG magnitude and variability correlated highly with both RMS error and force VR for the massed group. It was concluded that the massed contraction pattern allowed participants to learn how to regulate joint stiffness in addition to the variability of muscle activity. This allowed for greater decreases in RMS error than could be obtained by regulating the variability of muscle activity alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24691759What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.