ArticlePloS one2025
Comparison of lower limb muscle activation between slow and fast tempos during the stepping test in young men.
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether and which lower limb muscles contribute to maintaining dynamic balance during the stepping test. Twelve healthy young men performed in-place stepping at tempos of 44 (slow) and 132 (fast) bpm. Vertical ground reaction forces and lower limb muscle activity were recorded using a force plate and a telemetric electromyography (EMG) system, respectively. EMG signals were recorded from the rectus femoris (RF), vastus lateralis (VL), biceps femoris (BF), gastrocnemius medialis (GM), and soleus (SOL) on the right leg. The single-leg support time and the time difference between metronome sound and foot contact at the slow tempo were greater than those at the fast tempo. The impact force at the fast tempo was greater than that at the slow tempo. In the single-leg support phase, the mean EMG signals of the RF, VL, and SOL at the slow tempo were 63%, 17%, and 23% lower, respectively, than those at the fast tempo, whereas the integrated EMG signals of the VL, BF, GM, and SOL at the slow tempo were 171%, 315%, 214%, and 157% greater, respectively. There were no significant relationships among the rate of change in the single-leg support time, the time difference from the slow to the fast tempo, or the rate of change in the EMG activity of each muscle. In the stepping test, movement characteristics associated with tempo were reflected in lower limb muscle activity, while dynamic balance indicators appeared to be influenced by factors other than muscle activation.
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.