ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2025
Forearm rotation and elbow angle differentially modulate biceps brachii and brachioradialis muscle stiffness and EMG activity during low-load isometric contractions: a cross-sectional study in healthy individuals.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Triceps Muscle Fiber-Specific Myokines in Pancreatic β-Cell Protection: Implications for Type 2 Diabetes: A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Effects of grip variation on biceps brachii and brachioradialis electromyographic activity during concentric and eccentric phases of the barbell curl exercise.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith increasing occupational demands for flexed elbow postures, understanding multi-joint influences on upper limb musculature becomes crucial. This cross-sectional observational study investigated the effects of forearm rotation and elbow flexion angles on muscle stiffness and activation patterns in biceps brachii (BB) and brachioradialis (BR) during loaded isometric contractions.
methodsThirty-six healthy males performed isometric elbow flexion under 15 combinations of isometric elbow flexion (3 forearm rotational state × 5 elbow joint angles). Muscle stiffness was quantified using MyotonPRO, while activation levels were assessed via surface electromyography (sEMG).
resultsElbow angle and forearm rotation exerted significant main effects on BB stiffness and sEMG RMS (p ≤ 0.05). Their interaction influenced BB stiffness (p ≤ 0.05) but not RMS. In pronation, BB stiffness progressively decreased from 15° (resting) to 120°, with significant reductions at 15° vs. 90°/120° and 30°-60° vs. 90°/120° (p ≤ 0.05). Neutral/supinated positions exhibited peak stiffness at 60°. Under 1 kg loading, stiffness ranked: pronation (lowest) < neutral < supination (highest; p ≤ 0.05). BB RMS peaked at 60° (neutral/supination) and 45° (pronation). Pronated BB RMS was reduced at 30° vs. 45°/60°/120°, while neutral positioning showed lower RMS at 30° vs. 45°-120° (p ≤ 0.05). Supinated BB RMS decreased at 30° vs. 45°/60° and 120° vs. 45°-90° (p ≤ 0.05). Among 30°-90°, supinated BB RMS exceeded neutral/pronated values; neutral surpassed pronation. At 120°, pronated RMS remained lower than neutral/supinated (p ≤ 0.05). For BR, elbow angle affected both stiffness and RMS (p ≤ 0.05), while forearm rotation influenced only RMS (p ≤ 0.05). Interaction effects occurred for both parameters (p ≤ 0.05). BR stiffness declined progressively from 30° to 120°. Pronated BR stiffness was elevated at 30° vs. 60°-120°, 45° vs. 90°/120°, 60° vs. 90°/120°, and 90° vs. 120° (p ≤ 0.05). This progressive pattern was consistent across neutral and supinated positions. Supination yielded higher resting (15°) BR stiffness than pronation/neutral (p ≤ 0.05). Loaded BR stiffness at 45° was greater in pronation vs. supination (p ≤ 0.05). BR RMS peaked at 60° (pronation/neutral) and increased progressively from 30° to 120° (supination). Pronated BR RMS was reduced at 30° vs. 45°-120°, while supinated positioning showed lower RMS at 30° vs. 60°-120°, 45° vs. 90°/120° and 60° vs. 120° (p ≤ 0.05). Neutral RMS was reduced at 30° vs. 60°, increased at 45° vs. 120° and 60° vs. 90°/120° (p ≤ 0.05). Across positions, supinated BR RMS was reduced at 30°-60° vs. pronated/neutral, while pronation demonstrated higher RMS at 90°/120° vs. neutral/supinated (p ≤ 0.05).
conclusionsThese findings suggest that during a 1 kg-loaded isometric elbow flexion task, both muscles exhibit differential activation patterns in response to forearm rotation, elbow joint angle, and their interaction. The observed variations in sEMG RMS values may reflect distinct activation strategies, with BB appearing more active in supination and BR in pronation. Further controlled studies are needed to clarify the underlying biomechanical mechanisms.
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.