Compound maximal motor unit response is modulated by contraction intensity, but not contraction type in tibialis anterior

Determining a single compound maximal motor response (M (MAX)) or an average superimposed M (MAX) response (M (SUP)) are commonly used reference values in experiments eliciting raw electromyographic, motor evoked potentials, H‐reflexes, and V‐waves. However, existing literature is limited in detailing the most appropriate method to normalize these electrophysiological measures. Due to the accessibility of assessment from a cortical and spinal perspective, the tibialis anterior is increasingly used in literature and hence investigated in this study. The aims of the present study were to examine the differences and level of agreement in M (MAX)/M (SUP) under different muscle actions and contraction intensities. Following a familiarization session, 22 males visited the laboratory on a single occasion. M (MAX) was recorded under 10% isometric and 25% and 100% shortening and lengthening maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) at an angular velocity of 15° sec(−) (1). M (SUP) was also recorded during 100% shortening and lengthening with an average of five responses recorded. There were no differences in M (MAX) or M (SUP) between contraction types. All variables showed large, positive correlations (P < 0.001, r (2) ≥ 0.64). M (MAX) amplitude was larger (P < 0.001) at 100% shortening and lengthening intensity compared to M (MAX) amplitude at 10% isometric and 25% lengthening MVC. Bland‐Altman plots revealed a bias toward higher M (MAX) at the higher contraction intensities. Despite M (SUP) being significantly smaller than M (MAX) (P < 0.001) at 100% MVC, M (SUP) showed a large positive correlation (P < 0.001, r (2) ≥ 0.64) with all variables. It is our recommendation that M (MAX) should be recorded at specific contraction intensity but not necessarily a specific contraction type.