Trial reportPloS one2015
The Effect of Antagonist Muscle Sensory Input on Force Regulation.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An assessment of co-contraction in reinnervated muscle.Regenerative medicine · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand how stretch-related sensory feedback from an antagonist muscle affects agonist muscle output at different contraction levels in healthy adults. Ten young (25.3 ± 2.4 years), healthy subjects performed constant isometric knee flexion contractions (agonist) at 6 torque levels: 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, and 40% of their maximal voluntary contraction. For half of the trials, subjects received patellar tendon taps (antagonist sensory feedback) during the contraction. We compared error in targeted knee flexion torque and hamstring muscle activity, with and without patellar tendon tapping, across the 6 torque levels. At lower torque levels (5%, 10%, and 15%), subjects produced greater knee torque error following tendon tapping compared with the same torque levels without tendon tapping. In contrast, we did not find any difference in torque output at higher target levels (20%, 30%, and 40%) between trials with and without tendon tapping. We also observed a load-dependent increase in the magnitude of agonist muscle activity after tendon taps, with no associated load-dependent increase in agonist and antagonist co-activation, or reflex inhibition from the antagonist tapping. The findings suggest that at relatively low muscle activity there is a deficiency in the ability to correct motor output after sensory disturbances, and cortical centers (versus sub-cortical) are likely involved.
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.