ArticlePhysiological reports2014
Task complexity and maximal isometric strength gains through motor learning.
Article in Physiological reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The cross education of strength and skill following unilateral strength training in the upper and lower limbs.Journal of neurophysiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared the effects of a simple versus complex contraction pattern on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of maximal isometric strength gains and reductions in force variability. A control group (N = 12) performed simple isometric contractions of the wrist flexors. An experimental group (N = 12) performed complex proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) contractions consisting of maximal isometric wrist extension immediately reversing force direction to wrist flexion within a single trial. Ten contractions were completed on three consecutive days with a retention and transfer test 2-weeks later. For the retention test, the groups performed their assigned contraction pattern followed by a transfer test that consisted of the other contraction pattern for a cross-over design. Both groups exhibited comparable increases in strength (20.2%, P < 0.01) and reductions in mean torque variability (26.2%, P < 0.01), which were retained and transferred. There was a decrease in the coactivation ratio (antagonist/agonist muscle activity) for both groups, which was retained and transferred (35.2%, P < 0.01). The experimental group exhibited a linear decrease in variability of the torque- and sEMG-time curves, indicating transfer to the simple contraction pattern (P < 0.01). The control group underwent a decrease in variability of the torque- and sEMG-time curves from the first day of training to retention, but participants returned to baseline levels during the transfer condition (P < 0.01). However, the difference between torque RMS error versus the variability in torque- and sEMG-time curves suggests the demands of the complex task were transferred, but could not be achieved in a reproducible way.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.