ArticlePhysiological reports2018
Voluntary activation and twitch potentiation of the elbow flexors across supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm orientations.
Article in Physiological reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of menstrual cycle timing on female elbow flexion force steadiness.Physiological reports · 2026Article
- The effects of forearm position and contraction intensity on cortical and spinal excitability during a submaximal force steadiness task of the elbow flexors.Journal of neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Muscle length and joint angle influence spinal but not corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii across forearm postures.Journal of neurophysiology · 2019Article
- Voluntary activation and twitch potentiation of the elbow flexors across supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm orientations.Physiological reports · 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
Elbow flexion force depends on forearm orientation with supinated and neutral being stronger than pronated. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of forearm orientation on voluntary activation (VA), postactivation potentiation (PAP), and twitch properties. Eleven males (23 ± 3 years) performed isometric elbow flexion maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) in supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm orientations with supramaximal stimulation to the biceps brachii muscle belly before, during, and after the MVC. MVC and VA were higher in supinated (213.6 ± 49.6 N; 93.0 ± 5.2%) and neutral (243.6 ± 48.0 N; 96.1 ± 3.2%) compared with pronated (113.6 ± 21.3 N; 70.9 ± 20.4%) (P < 0.05), while PAP did not differ across the three orientations (71.6 ± 42.2%) (P > 0.05). In the rested state, pronated peak tension (PT) was less compared with supinated (42%). In the potentiated state, pronated PT was less than supinated (50%) and neutral (53%) (P < 0.05). Reduced strength in the pronated orientation is partially attributed to reduced drive; however, reductions in peak tension indicate that there also is a mechanical disadvantage when the forearm is placed into a pronated orientation, and this does not alter PAP.
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.