ArticlePhysiological reports2021
Residual force enhancement in humans: Is there a true non-responder?
Article in Physiological reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The stretch-shortening cycle effect is not associated with cortical or spinal excitability modulations.The Journal of physiology · 2025Article
- Modulation of stretch activation influences the stretch-shortening cycle effect in in vivo human knee extensors.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Decoupling of muscle-tendon unit and fascicle velocity contributes to the in vivo stretch-shortening cycle effect in the male human triceps surae muscle.Physiological reports · 2024Article
- Residual force enhancement is affected more by quadriceps muscle length than stretch amplitude.eLife · 2022Article
- Residual force enhancement in humans: Is there a true non-responder?Physiological 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When an active muscle is stretched and kept isometrically active, the resulting force is enhanced compared to a purely isometric reference contraction at the same muscle length and activity; a generally accepted muscle property called residual force enhancement (rFE). Interestingly, studies on voluntary muscle action regularly identify a significant number of participants not showing rFE. Therefore, the aim was to unmask possible confounders for this non-responsive behavior. Ten participants performed maximum voluntary isometric plantarflexion contractions with and without preceding stretch. Contractions were accompanied by the assessment of voluntary activation using the twitch-interpolation technique. The same test protocol was repeated four additional times with a least on day rest in-between. Additionally, at the first and fifth sessions, a submaximal tetanic muscle-stimulation condition was added. At both muscle-stimulation sessions mean rFE higher 10% (p < 0.028) was found. In contrast, during voluntary muscle action, individual participants showed inconsistent rFE across sessions and only one session (#3) had significant rFE (5%; p = 0.023) in group means. As all participants clearly had rFE in electrical stimulation conditions, structural deficits cannot explain the missing rFE in voluntary muscle action. However, we also did not find variability in voluntary activation levels or muscle activity as the confounding characteristics of "non-responders."
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.