Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35368343›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2022

Subject specific muscle synergies and mechanical output during cycling with arms or legs.

Théo Cartier, Laurent Vigouroux, Elke Viehweger, Guillaume Rao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Théo CartierAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.
Laurent VigourouxAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.
Elke ViehwegerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Basel, Allschwil, Switzerland.
Guillaume RaoAix Marseille Univ, CNRS, ISM, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Upper (UL) and lower limb (LL) cycling is extensively used for several applications, especially for rehabilitation for which neuromuscular interactions between UL and LL have been shown. Nevertheless, the knowledge on the muscular coordination modality for UL is poorly investigated and it is still not known whether those mechanisms are similar or different to those of LL. The aim of this study was thus to put in evidence common coordination mechanism between UL and LL during cycling by investigating the mechanical output and the underlying muscle coordination using synergy analysis. Methods: Twenty-five revolutions were analyzed for six non-experts' participants during sub-maximal cycling with UL or LL. Crank torque and muscle activity of eleven muscles UL or LL were recorded. Muscle synergies were extracted using nonnegative matrix factorization (NNMF) and group- and subject-specific analysis were conducted. Results: Four synergies were extracted for both UL and LL. UL muscle coordination was organized around several mechanical functions (pushing, downing, and pulling) with a proportion of propulsive torque almost 80% of the total revolution while LL muscle coordination was organized around a main function (pushing) during the first half of the cycling revolution. LL muscle coordination was robust between participants while UL presented higher interindividual variability. Discussion: We showed that a same principle of muscle coordination exists for UL during cycling but with more complex mechanical implications. This study also brings further results suggesting each individual has unique muscle signature.

Indexed as

LegMuscle, SkeletalBicyclingHumansLower ExtremityArm crankingCyclingLower limbMuscle coordinationMuscle synergiesUpper limb

Identifiers

PMID35368343
PMCPMC8973464

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.