Cited by 110Muscle activation and electromyography studiesSports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiology

In vivo specific tension of the human quadriceps femoris muscle

Erskine, Robert M., Jones, David A., Maganaris, Constantinos N., Degens, Hans·2009·European Journal of Applied Physiology

Abstract

It is not known to what extent the inter-individual variation in human muscle strength is explicable by differences in specific tension. To investigate this, a comprehensive approach was used to determine in vivo specific tension of the quadriceps femoris (QF) muscle (Method 1). Since this is a protracted technique, a simpler procedure was also developed to accurately estimate QF specific tension (Method 2). Method 1 comprised calculating patellar tendon force (F (t)) in 27 young, untrained males, by correcting maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) for antagonist co-activation, voluntary activation and moment arm length. For each component muscle, the physiological cross-sectional area (PCSA) was calculated as volume divided by fascicle length during MVC. Dividing F (t) by the sum of the four PCSAs (each multiplied by the cosine of its pennation angle during MVC) provided QF specific tension. Method 2 was a simplification of Method 1, where QF specific tension was estimated from a single anatomical CSA and vastus lateralis muscle geometry. Using Method 1, the variability in MVC (18%) and specific tension (16%) was similar. Specific tension from Method 1 (30 +/- 5 N cm(-2)) was similar to and correlated with that of Method 2 (29 +/- 5 N cm(-2); R (2) = 0.67; P < 0.05). In conclusion, most of the inter-individual variability in MVC torque remains largely unexplained. Furthermore, a simple method of estimating QF specific tension provided similar values to the comprehensive approach, thereby enabling accurate estimations of QF specific tension where time and resources are limited.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00421-009-1085-7

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 110

Authors
Erskine, R. M., Jones, D. A., Maganaris, C. N., & Degens, H.
Affiliations
Manchester Metropolitan University (GB)
Corresponding author
Erskine, Robert M.
Venue
European Journal of Applied Physiology
Published
2009-05-26
Volume
106
Issue
6
Pages
827-838
ISSN
  • 0020-9376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-6319
  • 1439-6327
OpenAlex
W2041927731
Cited by
110
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
3.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Journal of Applied Physiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-space (Manchester Metropolitan University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Muscle activation and electromyography studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
quadriceps, specific tension, muscle strength, interindividual variability, maximal voluntary contraction, patellar tendon force, physiological cross-sectional area, vastus lateralis, antagonist coactivation, voluntary activation, moment arm, pennation angle, fascicle length, muscle geometry
MeSH terms
Adult, Computer Simulation, Electromyography, Humans, Isometric Contraction, Knee Joint, Male, Models, Biological, Stress, Mechanical, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review