Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 761

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Strength increases from the motor program: comparison of training with maximal voluntary and imagined muscle contractions

Yue, G., Cole, K. J.·1992·Journal of Neurophysiology
DOI 10.1152/jn.1992.67.5.1114
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

1. This study addressed potential neural mechanisms of the strength increase that occur before muscle hypertrophy. In particular we examined whether such strength increases may result from training-induced changes in voluntary motor programs. We compared the maximal voluntary force production after a training program of repetitive maximal isometric muscle contractions with force output after a training program that did not involve repetitive activation of muscle; that is, after mental training. 2. Subjects trained their left hypothenar muscles for 4 wk, five sessions per week. One group produced repeated maximal isometric contractions of the abductor muscles of the fifth digit's metacarpophalangeal joint. A second group imagined producing these same, effortful isometric contractions. A third group did not train their fifth digit. Maximal abduction force, flexion/extension force and electrically evoked twitch force (abduction) of the fifth digit were measured along with maximal integrated electromyograms (EMG) of the hypothenar muscles from both hands before and after training. 3. Average abduction force of the left fifth digit increased 22% for the Imagining group and 30% for the Contraction group. The mean increase for the Control group was 3.7%. 4. The maximal abduction force of the right (untrained) fifth digit increased significantly in both the Imagining and Contraction groups after training (10 and 14%, respectively), but not in the Control group (2.3%). These results are consistent with previous studies of training effects on contralateral limbs. 5. The abduction twitch force evoked by supramaximal electrical stimulations of the ulnar nerve was unchanged in all three groups after training, consistent with an absence of muscle hypertrophy. The maximal force of the left great toe extensors for individual subjects remained unchanged after training, which argues against strength increases due to general increases in effort level. 6. Increases in abduction and flexion forces of the fifth digit were poorly correlated in subjects of both training groups. The fifth finger abduction force and the hypothenar integrated EMG increases were not well correlated in these subjects either. Together these results indicate that training-induced changes of synergist and antagonist muscle activation patterns may have contributed to force increases in some of the subjects. 7. Strength increases can be achieved without repeated muscle activation. These force gains appear to result from practice effects on central motor programming/planning. The results of these experiments add to existing evidence for the neural origin of strength increases that occur before muscle hypertrophy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/jn.1992.67.5.1114

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yue, G., & Cole, K. J.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Publisher
American Physiological Society
Published
1992-05-01
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1114-1123
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
DOI
10.1152/jn.1992.67.5.1114
OpenAlex
W2153335360
Cited by
761
References
0
FWCI
34.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.