ArticleJournal of biomechanics2020
Adapting a fatigue model for shoulder flexion fatigue: Enhancing recovery rate during intermittent rest intervals.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2020. 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.
- A four-compartment controller model of muscle fatigue for static and dynamic tasks.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Although the rotator cuff muscles are susceptible to fatigue, shoulder fatigue studies reporting torque decline during intermittent tasks are relatively uncommon in the literature. A previous modification to the three-compartment controller (3CC) fatigue model incorporated a rest recovery multiplier (3CC-r model) to represent augmented blood flow to muscle during rest intervals (Looft et al., 2018). A rest recovery value of r = 15 was optimal for ankle, knee, and elbow joint regions, whereas r = 30 was better for hand/grip muscles. However, shoulder torque decline data was unavailable in the literature for comparison. Thus, the purpose of this study was to collect fatigue data for two different intermittent, isometric shoulder flexion fatiguing tasks and assess the 3CC-r model with r = 15 or 30 compared to the original 3CC model. Twenty healthy participants (9 M) completed two fatigue tasks: 50% maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) with 50% duty cycle (DC) and 70% MVC with 70% DC. MVCs were assessed at discrete time points (1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 min) until endurance time (MET). Mean observed percent torque decline (%TD) for the two tasks were compared to three model estimates: 3CC-r (using r = 15 and r = 30) and 3CC. Using these data, we confirmed that the addition of a rest multiplier (r = 15 somewhat better than r = 30) substantially improved predictions of shoulder fatigue using a previously validated analytical fatigue model (3CC). The relatively large reduction in model errors over the original model suggests the importance of representing augmented recovery during rest periods.
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.