ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Asymmetry in contralateral muscle excitation in proximal vs. distal muscles in upper extremities.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of the study was to investigate potential asymmetry in contralateral muscle excitation (CME) in proximal versus distal muscles. Given the dominant arm's greater accuracy in unilateral tasks, reinforced by habitual use and neural specialization, along with neurophysiological constraints in the central nervous system and functional differences between proximal and distal muscles, higher CME was hypothesized in both the dominant compared to non-dominant and proximal compared to versus distal muscles. Secondly, a proximal-distal gradient of asymmetry in CME was hypothesized, with more pronounced bilateral asymmetry for distal compared to proximal muscles. Methods: Isometric shoulder and index finger flexion on the dominant and non-dominant arm was performed at 25, 50, 75, and 100% of maximum isometric force. Muscle excitation was measured using sEMG placed on the non-active contralateral flexor carpi radialis (FCR; distal condition) and on the anterior deltoid (proximal condition) on both the dominant and non-dominant arm. Results: In the unilateral shoulder flexion (proximal condition), no CME asymmetry between the non-active anterior deltoid on the dominant and non-dominant arm was observed. In contrast, in unilateral index finger flexion (distal condition), a pronounced asymmetry in CME was observed, with the FCR on the dominant arm exhibiting greater CME compared to the FCR on the non-dominant arm. Discussion: These findings highlight neurophysiological distinctions of the dominant side, especially in distal muscles where refined neural circuits support greater CME. In contrast, the absence of asymmetry in proximal muscles is consistent with their stronger bilateral communication, facilitated by denser interhemispheric and spinal commissural pathways. Overall, the results indicate that CME asymmetries are shaped by both cortical specialization and structural differences in neural connectivity, offering new insight into how dominance and proximal-distal distinctions interact in motor control.
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.