ArticleiScience2025
Agonist-antagonist muscular co-contraction improves rapid corrective responses.
Article in iScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Muscle-level evaluation of the minimum muscle-stress-change model in human three-joint reaching using anatomically expanded arm models.Biological cybernetics · 2026Article
- Acute and Short-Term Effects of Real-Time Feedback Neuromuscular Training on Vertical Jump Performance and Reactive Efficiency in Youth Basketball Players.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A comparative analysis of co-contraction indices using synthetic EMG data: Implications for selection and interpretation.PloS one · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Muscular co-contraction (simultaneous activation of both agonist and antagonist muscle groups) has been observed to emerge across a range of challenging tasks. But is it beneficial? In this study we address this untested assumption by quantifying the performance benefits of muscular co-contraction when making rapid corrective responses to mechanical perturbations. Even small levels of co-contraction resulted in significant performance improvements compared to the relaxed condition in a target recapture task following a mechanical perturbation. Performance was also better when co-contracting compared to when a single muscle group was active prior to the perturbation. The performance benefits of co-contracting seem partially attributable to neural mechanisms where activation of both agonist and antagonist muscles allowed both groups to contribute to limb control via reflex responses. These findings highlight how co-contraction can greatly impact motor performance. Further, the benefit of co-contraction extends beyond just increased muscle activity providing instantaneous resistance to limb motion.
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.