The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neural control of lengthening contractions
Abstract
A number of studies over the last few decades have established that the control strategy employed by the nervous system during lengthening (eccentric) differs from those used during shortening (concentric) and isometric contractions. The purpose of this review is to summarize current knowledge on the neural control of lengthening contractions. After a brief discussion of methodological issues that can confound the comparison between lengthening and shortening actions, the review provides evidence that untrained individuals are usually unable to fully activate their muscles during a maximal lengthening contraction and that motor unit activity during submaximal lengthening actions differs from that during shortening actions. Contrary to common knowledge, however, more recent studies have found that the recruitment order of motor units is similar during submaximal shortening and lengthening contractions, but that discharge rate is systematically lower during lengthening actions. Subsequently, the review examines the mechanisms responsible for the specific control of maximal and submaximal lengthening contractions as reported by recent studies on the modulation of cortical and spinal excitability. As similar modulation has been observed regardless of contraction intensity, it appears that spinal and corticospinal excitability are reduced during lengthening compared with shortening and isometric contractions. Nonetheless, the modulation observed during lengthening contractions is mainly attributable to inhibition at the spinal level.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Relation between size of neurons and their susceptibility to discharge
Henneman, E. (1957) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.126.3287.1345 · Cited by 1,227
Differential adaptations to eccentric versus conventional resistance training in older humans
Reeves, N. D., Maganaris, C. N., Longo, S., & Narici, M. V. (2009) · Experimental Physiology · doi:10.1113/expphysiol.2009.046599 · Cited by 274
Cited by
Franchi, M. V., Reeves, N. D., & Narici, M. V. (2017) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00447 · Cited by 386
Mechanisms and Mediators of the Skeletal Muscle Repeated Bout Effect
Hyldahl, R. D., Chen, T. C., & Nosaka, K. (2017) · Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · doi:10.1249/jes.0000000000000095 · Cited by 284
Eccentric Exercise: Physiological Characteristics and Acute Responses
Douglas, J., Pearson, S., Ross, A., & McGuigan, M. (2017) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-016-0624-8 · Cited by 257
Iversen, V. M., Norum, M., Schoenfeld, B. J., & Fimland, M. S. (2021) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-021-01490-1 · Cited by 122
Effect of Immobilisation on Neuromuscular Function In Vivo in Humans: A Systematic Review
Campbell, M., Varley-Campbell, J., Fulford, J., Taylor, B., Mileva, K. N., & Bowtell, J. L. (2019) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-019-01088-8 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Duchateau, J., & Enoka, R. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Biology
- Publisher
- The Company of Biologists
- Published
- 2016-01-01
- Volume
- 219
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 197-204
- ISSN
- 0022-0949 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-9145
- OpenAlex
- W2269223892
- Cited by
- 220
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.55
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Neural control of lengthening contractions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1242/jeb.123158
- The paper
- Duchateau, J., & Enoka, R. M. (2016). Neural control of lengthening contractions. Journal of Experimental Biology. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.123158
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.