Brittney A Luc1, Matthew H Harkey1, Gabrielle D Arguelles2, J Troy Blackburn2, Eric D Ryan2, Brian Pietrosimone2. 1. Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States; Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States. 2. Department of Exercise and Sports Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Quadriceps voluntary activation, assessed via the superimposed burst technique, has been extensively studied in a variety of populations as a measure of quadriceps function. However, a variety of stimulus delivery techniques have been employed, which may influence the level of voluntary activation as calculated via the central activation ratio (CAR). The purpose was to determine the effect of visual feedback, stimulus delivery, and perceived discomfort on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak torque and the CAR. METHODS: Quadriceps CAR was assessed in 14 individuals on two days using three stimulus delivery methods; (1) manual without visual feedback, (2) manual with visual feedback, and (3) automated with visual feedback. RESULTS: MVIC peak torque and the CAR were not different between the automated with visual feedback (MVIC=3.25, SE=0.14Nm/kg; CAR=88.63, SE=1.75%) and manual with visual feedback (MVIC=3.26, SE=0.13Nm/kg, P=0.859; CAR=89.06, SE=1.70%, P=0.39) stimulus delivery methods. MVIC (2.99, SE=0.12Nm/kg) and CAR (85.32, SE=2.10%) were significantly lower using manual without visual feedback compared to manual with visual feedback and automated with visual feedback (CAR P<0.001; MVIC P<0.001). Perceived discomfort was lower in the second session (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Utilizing visual feedback ensures participant MVIC, and may provide a more accurate assessment of quadriceps voluntary activation.
INTRODUCTION:Quadriceps voluntary activation, assessed via the superimposed burst technique, has been extensively studied in a variety of populations as a measure of quadriceps function. However, a variety of stimulus delivery techniques have been employed, which may influence the level of voluntary activation as calculated via the central activation ratio (CAR). The purpose was to determine the effect of visual feedback, stimulus delivery, and perceived discomfort on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak torque and the CAR. METHODS: Quadriceps CAR was assessed in 14 individuals on two days using three stimulus delivery methods; (1) manual without visual feedback, (2) manual with visual feedback, and (3) automated with visual feedback. RESULTS: MVIC peak torque and the CAR were not different between the automated with visual feedback (MVIC=3.25, SE=0.14Nm/kg; CAR=88.63, SE=1.75%) and manual with visual feedback (MVIC=3.26, SE=0.13Nm/kg, P=0.859; CAR=89.06, SE=1.70%, P=0.39) stimulus delivery methods. MVIC (2.99, SE=0.12Nm/kg) and CAR (85.32, SE=2.10%) were significantly lower using manual without visual feedback compared to manual with visual feedback and automated with visual feedback (CAR P<0.001; MVIC P<0.001). Perceived discomfort was lower in the second session (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Utilizing visual feedback ensures participant MVIC, and may provide a more accurate assessment of quadriceps voluntary activation.
Authors: Brittney A Luc-Harkey; Matthew S Harkey; Derek N Pamukoff; Rebecca H Kim; Troy K Royal; J Troy Blackburn; Jeffery T Spang; Brian Pietrosimone Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Scott K Lynn; Casey M Watkins; Megan A Wong; Katherine Balfany; Daniel F Feeney Journal: J Sports Sci Med Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 2.988
Authors: Christopher Kuenze; Brian Pietrosimone; Caroline Lisee; Margaret Rutherford; Tom Birchmeier; Adam Lepley; Joseph Hart Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sarah H Ward; J Troy Blackburn; Darin A Padua; Laura E Stanley; Matthew S Harkey; Brittney A Luc-Harkey; Brian Pietrosimone Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2018-01-19 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Derek N Pamukoff; Brian G Pietrosimone; Eric D Ryan; Dustin R Lee; J Troy Blackburn Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2017-04-18 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: H C Davis; B A Luc-Harkey; M K Seeley; J Troy Blackburn; B Pietrosimone Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Brooke Farmer; Dillon Anderson; Dimitrios Katsavelis; Jennifer J Bagwell; Kimberly A Turman; Terry L Grindstaff Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Brian Pietrosimone; Hope C Davis-Wilson; Matthew K Seeley; Christopher Johnston; Jeffrey T Spang; R Alexander Creighton; Ganesh M Kamath; J Troy Blackburn Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2021-01-22 Impact factor: 3.824