| Literature DB >> 20458124 |
Nobuari Takakura1, Hiroyoshi Yajima, Miho Takayama, Akiko Kawase, Ikuo Homma.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vibration-induced finger flexion reflex (VFR) in the upper extremity is inhibited by needle insertion acupuncture to the large intestine 4 (LI4) at the hand. This claim has a limitation because the inhibitory effect is deduced only from reduction in the maximum finger flexion (FF) force during the tonic flexion reflex by vibratory stimulation after acupuncture.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20458124 PMCID: PMC3002759 DOI: 10.1136/aim.2009.001149
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acupunct Med ISSN: 0964-5284 Impact factor: 2.267
Figure 1Illustration of experimental settings. Vibration at 60 Hz was applied to the volar side of the middle fingertip.
Figure 2Records of finger flexion force (upper), surface electromyogram (EMG) (middle) and integrated surface EMG (lower) during vibration-induced finger flexion reflex (VFR) for a subject before and after acupuncture. Maximum finger flexion force, area under the curve of finger flexion force and surface EMG during VFR decreased markedly after acupuncture compared to those before acupuncture in a typical subject.
Figure 3Changes in mean (SD) (A) maximum finger flexion force (MFF), (B) area under the curve (AUC) of finger flexion force (C) and integrated surface EMG for 16 subjects in the acupuncture condition (red line) and control condition (blue line). Vertical axis is the percentage of before 1 value of MFF, AUC and integrated surface EMG and the horizontal axis is time. *p <0.05, **p < 0.01.
Figure 4Correlation between area under the curve (AUC) of finger flexion force and integrated surface electromyogram (EMG) (left), integrated surface EMG and maximum finger flexion force (MFF) (middle) and AUC and MFF (right).
Average values of MFF, AUC and IEMG from ‘after 1’ to ‘after 9’ (after acupuncture) in control condition and acupuncture condition and correlation between the MFF, AUC and IEMG for each of the 16 subjects
| MFF (%) | AUC (%) | IEMG (%) | Correlation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Control condition | Acupuncture condition | Control condition | Acupuncture condition | Control condition | Acupuncture condition | AUC and IEMG | IEMG and MFF | AUC and MFF |
| No 1 | 107.6 | 83.8 | 110.2 | 83.1 | 106.7 | 59.8 | r=0.756 | r=0.741 | r=0.974 |
| No 2 | 94.8 | 80.8 | 90.1 | 94.1 | 104.4 | 93.7 | r=0.382 | r=0.413 | r=0.920 |
| No 3 | 103.3 | 103.4 | 98.1 | 98.8 | 118.0 | 92.5 | r=0.462 | r=0.075 | r=0.710 |
| No 4 | 133.0 | 87.1 | 134.1 | 77.9 | 110.6 | 84.8 | r=0.773 | r=0.809 | r=0.979 |
| No 5 | 102.0 | 88.4 | 108.8 | 80.9 | 115.5 | 76.2 | r=0.667 | r=0.478 | r=0.953 |
| No 6 | 121.5 | 54.6 | 129.3 | 69.1 | 103.8 | 78.3 | r=0.776 | r=0.826 | r=0.981 |
| No 7 | 112.7 | 77.9 | 150.7 | 79.9 | 116.1 | 81.2 | r=0.733 | r=0.710 | r=0.962 |
| No 8 | 92.2 | 74.7 | 89.1 | 67.4 | 116.0 | 97.9 | r=0.509 | r=0.447 | r=0.983 |
| No 9 | 92.5 | 91.1 | 94.1 | 117.0 | 107.0 | 89.8 | r=0.003 | r=0.321 | r=0.759 |
| No 10 | 84.4 | 81.3 | 88.2 | 86.7 | 102.7 | 84.8 | r=0.359 | r=0.463 | r=0.932 |
| No 11 | 94.8 | 72.9 | 92.5 | 70.7 | 97.7 | 57.8 | r=0.816 | r=0.790 | r=0.974 |
| No 12 | 104.0 | 86.8 | 109.9 | 91.3 | 120.6 | 94.7 | r=0.764 | r=0.686 | r=0.945 |
| No 13 | 104.4 | 83.6 | 112.3 | 89.3 | 102.4 | 88.8 | r=0.279 | r=0.350 | r=0.965 |
| No 14 | 88.4 | 88.7 | 88.9 | 81.5 | 97.1 | 96.2 | r=0.156 | r=0.187 | r=0.904 |
| No 15 | 90.7 | 79.3 | 95.5 | 71.3 | 86.6 | 98.2 | r=0.161 | r=0.205 | r=0.955 |
| No 16 | 97.8 | 73.7 | 94.3 | 75.7 | 107.7 | 59.9 | r=0.692 | r=0.710 | r=0.974 |
p <0.05,
p <0.01.
AUC, area under the curve of finger flexion force; IEMG, integrated surface electromyogram; MFF, maximum finger flexion force.