Cargando…

A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks

Background: This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Methods: Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immov...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jeon, Sunggun, Miller, William M., Ye, Xin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32325707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082799
_version_ 1783532204878462976
author Jeon, Sunggun
Miller, William M.
Ye, Xin
author_facet Jeon, Sunggun
Miller, William M.
Ye, Xin
author_sort Jeon, Sunggun
collection PubMed
description Background: This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Methods: Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Results: Both agonist and antagonist muscles’ EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative (p = 0.010) and more positive (p = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. Conclusions: To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7215511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72155112020-05-22 A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks Jeon, Sunggun Miller, William M. Ye, Xin Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Background: This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Methods: Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Results: Both agonist and antagonist muscles’ EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative (p = 0.010) and more positive (p = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. Conclusions: To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task. MDPI 2020-04-18 2020-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7215511/ /pubmed/32325707 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082799 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jeon, Sunggun
Miller, William M.
Ye, Xin
A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title_full A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title_fullStr A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title_short A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
title_sort comparison of motor unit control strategies between two different isometric tasks
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32325707
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082799
work_keys_str_mv AT jeonsunggun acomparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks
AT millerwilliamm acomparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks
AT yexin acomparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks
AT jeonsunggun comparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks
AT millerwilliamm comparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks
AT yexin comparisonofmotorunitcontrolstrategiesbetweentwodifferentisometrictasks