Literature DB >> 20033680

Timing variability and not force variability predicts the endpoint accuracy of fast and slow isometric contractions.

Brach Poston1, Evangelos A Christou, Joel A Enoka, Roger M Enoka.   

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine the contributions of endpoint variance and trajectory variability to the endpoint accuracy of goal-directed isometric contractions when the target force and contraction speed were varied. Thirteen young adults (25 +/- 6 years) performed blocks of 15 trials at each of 2 contraction speeds and 4 target forces. Subjects were instructed to match the peak of a parabolic force trajectory to a target force by controlling the abduction force exerted by the index finger. The time to peak force was either 150 ms (fast) or 1 s (slow). The target forces were 20, 40, 60, and 80% of the maximal force that could be achieved in 150 ms during an MVC. The same absolute forces were required for both contraction speeds. Endpoint accuracy and variability in force and time along with intramuscular EMG activity of the agonist (first dorsal interosseus) and antagonist (second palmar interosseus) muscles were quantified for each block of trials. The principal dependent variables were endpoint error (shortest distance between the coordinates of the target and the peak force), endpoint variance (sum of the variance in peak force and time to peak force), trial-to-trial variability (SD of peak force and time to peak force), SD of the force trajectory (SD of the detrended force from force onset to peak force), normalized peak EMG amplitude, and the SD of normalized peak EMG amplitude. Stepwise multiple linear regression models were used to determine the EMG activity parameters that could explain the differences observed in endpoint error and endpoint variance. Endpoint error increased with target force for the fast contractions, but not for the slow contractions. In contrast, endpoint variance was greatest at the lowest force and was not associated with endpoint error at either contraction speed. Furthermore, force trajectory SD was not associated with endpoint error or endpoint variance for either contraction speed. Only the trial-to-trial variability of the timing predicted endpoint accuracy for fast and slow contractions. These findings indicate that endpoint error in tasks that require force and timing accuracy is minimized by controlling timing variability but not force variability, and that endpoint error is not related to the amplitude of the activation signal.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20033680      PMCID: PMC3631579          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-009-2126-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  47 in total

1.  Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy.

Authors:  Paul L Gribble; Lucy I Mullin; Nicholas Cothros; Andrew Mattar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-01-22       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Motor output is more variable during eccentric compared with concentric contractions.

Authors:  Evangelos A Christou; Les G Carlton
Journal:  Med Sci Sports Exerc       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 5.411

3.  Changes in the variability of movement trajectories with practice.

Authors:  W G Darling; J D Cooke
Journal:  J Mot Behav       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 1.328

4.  Different neural adjustments improve endpoint accuracy with practice in young and old adults.

Authors:  Evangelos A Christou; Brach Poston; Joel A Enoka; Roger M Enoka
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-03-21       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Endpoint accuracy for a small and a large hand muscle in young and old adults during rapid, goal-directed isometric contractions.

Authors:  Brach Poston; Joel A Enoka; Roger M Enoka
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Control of simple arm movements in elderly humans.

Authors:  W G Darling; J D Cooke; S H Brown
Journal:  Neurobiol Aging       Date:  1989 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 4.673

7.  Signals in tactile afferents from the fingers eliciting adaptive motor responses during precision grip.

Authors:  R S Johansson; G Westling
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1987       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Old adults exhibit greater motor output variability than young adults only during rapid discrete isometric contractions.

Authors:  E A Christou; L G Carlton
Journal:  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 6.053

9.  An organizing principle for a class of voluntary movements.

Authors:  N Hogan
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 10.  Noise in the nervous system.

Authors:  A Aldo Faisal; Luc P J Selen; Daniel M Wolpert
Journal:  Nat Rev Neurosci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 34.870

View more
  8 in total

1.  Altered activation of the antagonist muscle during practice compromises motor learning in older adults.

Authors:  Yen-Ting Chen; MinHyuk Kwon; Emily J Fox; Evangelos A Christou
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Aging and limb alter the neuromuscular control of goal-directed movements.

Authors:  MinHyuk Kwon; Yen-Ting Chen; Emily J Fox; Evangelos A Christou
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Motor control differs for increasing and releasing force.

Authors:  Seoung Hoon Park; MinHyuk Kwon; Danielle Solis; Neha Lodha; Evangelos A Christou
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-03-09       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Neuromuscular control of goal-directed ankle movements differs for healthy children and adults.

Authors:  Emily J Fox; Hwasil Moon; MinHyuk Kwon; Yen-Ting Chen; Evangelos A Christou
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2014-06-07       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Movement trajectory smoothness is not associated with the endpoint accuracy of rapid multi-joint arm movements in young and older adults.

Authors:  Brach Poston; Arend W A Van Gemmert; Siddharth Sharma; Somesh Chakrabarti; Shahrzad H Zavaremi; George Stelmach
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2013-04-10

6.  Quantitative Separation of Tremor and Ataxia in Essential Tremor.

Authors:  Agostina Casamento-Moran; Basma Yacoubi; Bradley J Wilkes; Christopher W Hess; Kelly D Foote; Michael S Okun; Aparna Wagle Shukla; David E Vaillancourt; Evangelos A Christou
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2020-07-08       Impact factor: 10.422

7.  Fluctuations in Human Corticospinal Activity Prior to Grasp.

Authors:  Nishant Rao; Pranav J Parikh
Journal:  Front Syst Neurosci       Date:  2019-12-20

8.  Long-Term Application of Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Improve Motor Learning in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Lidio Lima de Albuquerque; Milan Pantovic; Mitchell G Clingo; Katherine M Fischer; Sharon Jalene; Merrill R Landers; Zoltan Mari; Brach Poston
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 3.648

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.