Literature DB >> 22556395

Motor unit recruitment when neuromuscular electrical stimulation is applied over a nerve trunk compared with a muscle belly: quadriceps femoris.

A J Bergquist1, M J Wiest, D F Collins.   

Abstract

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can be delivered over a nerve trunk or muscle belly and both can generate contractions through peripheral and central pathways. Generating contractions through peripheral pathways is associated with a nonphysiological motor unit recruitment order, which may limit the efficacy of NMES rehabilitation. Presently, we compared recruitment through peripheral and central pathways for contractions of the knee extensors evoked by NMES applied over the femoral nerve vs. the quadriceps muscle. NMES was delivered to evoke 10 and 20% of maximum voluntary isometric contraction torque 2-3 s into the NMES (time(1)) in two patterns: 1) constant frequency (15 Hz for 8 s); and 2) step frequency (15-100-15 Hz and 25-100-25 Hz for 3-2-3 s, respectively). Torque and electromyographic activity recorded from vastus lateralis and medialis were quantified at the beginning (time(1)) and end (time(2); 6-7 s into the NMES) of each pattern. M-waves (peripheral pathway), H-reflexes, and asynchronous activity (central pathways) during NMES were quantified. Torque did not differ regardless of NMES location, pattern, or time. For both muscles, M-waves were ∼7-10 times smaller and H-reflexes ∼8-9 times larger during NMES over the nerve compared with over the muscle. However, unlike muscles studied previously, neither torque nor activity through central pathways were augmented following 100 Hz NMES, nor was any asynchronous activity evoked during NMES at either location. The coefficient of variation was also quantified at time(2) to determine the consistency of each dependent measure between three consecutive contractions. Torque, M-waves, and H-reflexes were most variable during NMES over the nerve. In summary, NMES over the nerve produced contractions with the greatest recruitment through central pathways; however, considering some of the limitations of NMES over the femoral nerve, it may be considered a good complement to, as opposed to a replacement for, NMES over the quadriceps muscle for maintaining muscle quality and reducing contraction fatigue during NMES rehabilitation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22556395     DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00074.2011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)        ISSN: 0161-7567


  18 in total

1.  Effect of neuromuscular electrical stimulation intensity over the tibial nerve trunk on triceps surae muscle fatigue.

Authors:  Aude-Clémence M Doix; Boris Matkowski; Alain Martin; Karin Roeleveld; Serge S Colson
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2013-11-27       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 2.  Do metabolites that are produced during resistance exercise enhance muscle hypertrophy?

Authors:  Scott J Dankel; Kevin T Mattocks; Matthew B Jessee; Samuel L Buckner; J Grant Mouser; Jeremy P Loenneke
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Pulse Width Does Not Influence the Gains Achieved With Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Awad M Almuklass; Leah Davis; Landon D Hamilton; Jeffrey R Hebert; Enrique Alvarez; Roger M Enoka
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 3.919

4.  Quadriceps muscle stimulation evokes heteronymous inhibition onto soleus with limited Ia activation compared to femoral nerve stimulation.

Authors:  Mark A Lyle; Cristian Cuadra; Steven L Wolf
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-07-26       Impact factor: 2.064

5.  Is the notion of central fatigue based on a solid foundation?

Authors:  Paola Contessa; Alessio Puleo; Carlo J De Luca
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Contributions to muscle force and EMG by combined neural excitation and electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Patrick E Crago; Nathaniel S Makowski; Natalie M Cole
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 5.379

7.  Effect of tendon vibration during wide-pulse neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on the decline and recovery of muscle force.

Authors:  Vanesa Bochkezanian; Robert U Newton; Gabriel S Trajano; Amilton Vieira; Timothy S Pulverenti; Anthony J Blazevich
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.474

8.  Electrical Stimulation of Afferent Pathways for the Suppression of Pathological Tremor.

Authors:  Jakob L Dideriksen; Christopher M Laine; Strahinja Dosen; Silvia Muceli; Eduardo Rocon; José L Pons; Julian Benito-Leon; Dario Farina
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.677

9.  Intramuscular Contributions to Low-Frequency Force Potentiation Induced by a High-Frequency Conditioning Stimulation.

Authors:  Arthur J Cheng; Daria Neyroud; Bengt Kayser; Håkan Westerblad; Nicolas Place
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-09-20       Impact factor: 4.566

10.  Tensiomyographic Markers Are Not Sensitive for Monitoring Muscle Fatigue in Elite Youth Athletes: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Thimo Wiewelhove; Christian Raeder; Rauno Alvaro de Paula Simola; Christoph Schneider; Alexander Döweling; Alexander Ferrauti
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-06-16       Impact factor: 4.566

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.