ArticlePloS one2021
Paired personal interaction reveals objective differences between pushing and holding isometric muscle action.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- High prevalence of muscle stability deficits in semi-professional football players-Adaptive Force assessment reveals selective impairment of holding capacity with preserved maximal strength: A cross-sectional study.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- The mediating effect of force and velocity changes on power output enhancement in bench press throw after submaximal isometric conditioning activity in trained males.Biology of sport · 2025Article
- The Effect of Physiotherapy on Arthrogenic Muscle Inhibition After ACL Injury or Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- How to Confuse Motor Control: Passive Muscle Shortening after Contraction in Lengthened Position Reduces the Muscular Holding Stability in the Sense of Adaptive Force.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Adaptive Force as a Potential Biomechanical Parameter in the Recovery Process of Patients with Long COVID.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Repeated measurements of Adaptive Force: Maximal holding capacity differs from other maximal strength parameters and preliminary characteristics for non-professional strength vs. endurance athletes.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Emotional Imagery Influences the Adaptive Force in Young Women: Unpleasant Imagery Reduces Instantaneously the Muscular Holding Capacity.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Case Study: Intra- and Interpersonal Coherence of Muscle and Brain Activity of Two Coupled Persons during Pushing and Holding Isometric Muscle Action.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Muscle oxygenation and time to task failure of submaximal holding and pulling isometric muscle actions and influence of intermittent voluntary muscle twitches.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Muscle Oxygenation Level Might Trigger the Regulation of Capillary Venous Blood Filling during Fatiguing Isometric Muscle Actions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Disgusting odours affect the characteristics of the Adaptive Force in contrast to neutral and pleasant odours.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In sports and movement sciences isometric muscle function is usually measured by pushing against a stable resistance. However, subjectively one can hold or push isometrically. Several investigations suggest a distinction of those forms. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these two forms of isometric muscle action can be distinguished by objective parameters in an interpersonal setting. 20 subjects were grouped in 10 same sex pairs, in which one partner should perform the pushing isometric muscle action (PIMA) and the other partner executed the holding isometric muscle action (HIMA). The partners had contact at the distal forearms via an interface, which included a strain gauge and an acceleration sensor. The mechanical oscillations of the triceps brachii (MMGtri) muscle, its tendon (MTGtri) and the abdominal muscle (MMGobl) were recorded by a piezoelectric-sensor-based measurement system. Each partner performed three 15s (80% MVIC) and two fatiguing trials (90% MVIC) during PIMA and HIMA, respectively. Parameters to compare PIMA and HIMA were the mean frequency, the normalized mean amplitude, the amplitude variation, the power in the frequency range of 8 to 15 Hz, a special power-frequency ratio and the number of task failures during HIMA or PIMA (partner who quit the task). A "HIMA failure" occurred in 85% of trials (p < 0.001). No significant differences between PIMA and HIMA were found for the mean frequency and normalized amplitude. The MMGobl showed significantly higher values of amplitude variation (15s: p = 0.013; fatiguing: p = 0.007) and of power-frequency-ratio (15s: p = 0.040; fatiguing: p = 0.002) during HIMA and a higher power in the range of 8 to 15 Hz during PIMA (15s: p = 0.001; fatiguing: p = 0.011). MMGtri and MTGtri showed no significant differences. Based on the findings it is suggested that a holding and a pushing isometric muscle action can be distinguished objectively, whereby a more complex neural control is assumed for HIMA.
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.