Medicine and science in sports and exercise · 2022
Is the Interpolated-Twitch Technique-Derived Voluntary Activation Just Neural? Novel Perspectives from Mechanomyographic Data.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coratella Giuseppe, Cè Emiliano, Doria Christian, Borrelli Marta, Toninelli Nicholas, Rampichini Susanna, Limonta Eloisa, Longo Stefano, Esposito Fabio
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Voluntary activation (VA) determined by interpolation-twitch technique could be affected by the characteristics of the in-series elastic components. To overcome this possible bias, a novel approach based on the mechanomyographic (MMG) signal to detect voluntary activation (VA MMG ) has been proposed. We examined the changes in VA and VA MMG after passive stretching to check the influence of neural and mechanical factors in the force output.
METHODS: Twenty-six healthy men underwent VA assessment using the interpolated-twitch technique before and after unilateral passive stretching of the plantarflexors (five 45-s on + 15-s off). In addition to the force signal, the MMG signal was detected on gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, and soleus. From the force and MMG signal analysis, VA and VA MMG were calculated in the stretched and contralateral nonstretched limbs. Joint passive stiffness was also defined.
RESULTS: In the stretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (mean ± SD = +18% ± 10%, P < 0.001, ES = 1.54) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-22% ± 8%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.75), maximum voluntary contraction (-15% ± 7%, P < 0.001, ES = -0.87), VA (-7% ± 3%, P < 0.001, ES = -2.32), and VA MMG (~-5% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.26/-1.14). In the contralateral nonstretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (+10% ± 6%, P < 0.001, ES = 0.80) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-3% ± 2%, P = 0.041, ES = -0.27), maximum voluntary contraction (-4% ± 3%, P = 0.035, ES = -0.24), VA (-4% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.77), and VA MMG (~- 2% ± 1%, P < 0.05, ES = -0.54/-0.46). The stretch-induced changes in VA correlated with VA MMG ( R ranging from 0.447 to 0.583 considering all muscles) and with joint passive stiffness (stretched limb: R = 0.503; contralateral nonstretched limb: R = 0.530).
CONCLUSIONS: VA output is overall influenced by both neural and mechanical factors, not distinguishable using the interpolated-twitch technique. VA MMG is a complementary index to assess the changes in VA not influenced by mechanical factors and to examine synergistic muscles.
METHODS: Twenty-six healthy men underwent VA assessment using the interpolated-twitch technique before and after unilateral passive stretching of the plantarflexors (five 45-s on + 15-s off). In addition to the force signal, the MMG signal was detected on gastrocnemius medialis, gastrocnemius lateralis, and soleus. From the force and MMG signal analysis, VA and VA MMG were calculated in the stretched and contralateral nonstretched limbs. Joint passive stiffness was also defined.
RESULTS: In the stretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (mean ± SD = +18% ± 10%, P < 0.001, ES = 1.54) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-22% ± 8%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.75), maximum voluntary contraction (-15% ± 7%, P < 0.001, ES = -0.87), VA (-7% ± 3%, P < 0.001, ES = -2.32), and VA MMG (~-5% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.26/-1.14). In the contralateral nonstretched limb, passive stretching increased dorsiflexion range (+10% ± 6%, P < 0.001, ES = 0.80) but reduced joint passive stiffness (-3% ± 2%, P = 0.041, ES = -0.27), maximum voluntary contraction (-4% ± 3%, P = 0.035, ES = -0.24), VA (-4% ± 2%, P < 0.001, ES = -1.77), and VA MMG (~- 2% ± 1%, P < 0.05, ES = -0.54/-0.46). The stretch-induced changes in VA correlated with VA MMG ( R ranging from 0.447 to 0.583 considering all muscles) and with joint passive stiffness (stretched limb: R = 0.503; contralateral nonstretched limb: R = 0.530).
CONCLUSIONS: VA output is overall influenced by both neural and mechanical factors, not distinguishable using the interpolated-twitch technique. VA MMG is a complementary index to assess the changes in VA not influenced by mechanical factors and to examine synergistic muscles.