Amandine Bouguetoch1, Alain Martin2, Sidney Grosprêtre3. 1. Cognition, Action and Sensorimotor Plasticity [CAPS], Unité INSERM 1093, Université de Bourgogne-UFR STAPS, BP 27877, 21078, Dijon Cedex, France. amandine.bouguetoch@free.fr. 2. Cognition, Action and Sensorimotor Plasticity [CAPS], Unité INSERM 1093, Université de Bourgogne-UFR STAPS, BP 27877, 21078, Dijon Cedex, France. 3. EA-4660 C3S Culture Sport Health Society, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Training stimuli that partially activate the neuromuscular system, such as motor imagery (MI) or neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), have been previously shown as efficient tools to induce strength gains. Here the efficacy of MI, NMES or NMES + MI trainings has been compared. METHODS:Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in atraining program of ten sessions in 2 weeks targeting plantar flexor muscles, distributed in four groups: MI, NMES, NMES + MI and control. Each group underwent forty contractions in each session, NMES + MI group doing 20 contractions of each modality. Before and after, the neuromuscular function was tested through the recording of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), but also electrophysiological and mechanical responses associated with electrical nerve stimulation. Muscle architecture was assessed by ultrasonography. RESULTS:MVC increased by 11.3 ± 3.5% in NMES group, by 13.8 ± 5.6% in MI, while unchanged for NMES + MI and control. During MVC, a significant increase in V-wave without associated changes in superimposed H-reflex has been observed for NMES and MI, suggesting that neural adaptations occurred at supraspinal level. Rest spinal excitability was increased in the MI group while decreased in the NMES group. No change in muscle architecture (pennation angle, fascicle length) has been found in any group but muscular peak twitch and soleusmaximal M-wave increased in the NMES group only. CONCLUSION: Finally, MI and NMES seem to be efficient stimuli to improve strength, although both exhibited different and specific neural plasticity. On its side, NMES + MI combination did not provide the expected gains, suggesting that their effects are not simply cumulative, or even are competitive.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Training stimuli that partially activate the neuromuscular system, such as motor imagery (MI) or neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), have been previously shown as efficient tools to induce strength gains. Here the efficacy of MI, NMES or NMES + MI trainings has been compared. METHODS: Thirty-seven participants were enrolled in a training program of ten sessions in 2 weeks targeting plantar flexor muscles, distributed in four groups: MI, NMES, NMES + MI and control. Each group underwent forty contractions in each session, NMES + MI group doing 20 contractions of each modality. Before and after, the neuromuscular function was tested through the recording of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), but also electrophysiological and mechanical responses associated with electrical nerve stimulation. Muscle architecture was assessed by ultrasonography. RESULTS: MVC increased by 11.3 ± 3.5% in NMES group, by 13.8 ± 5.6% in MI, while unchanged for NMES + MI and control. During MVC, a significant increase in V-wave without associated changes in superimposed H-reflex has been observed for NMES and MI, suggesting that neural adaptations occurred at supraspinal level. Rest spinal excitability was increased in the MI group while decreased in the NMES group. No change in muscle architecture (pennation angle, fascicle length) has been found in any group but muscular peak twitch and soleus maximal M-wave increased in the NMES group only. CONCLUSION: Finally, MI and NMES seem to be efficient stimuli to improve strength, although both exhibited different and specific neural plasticity. On its side, NMES + MI combination did not provide the expected gains, suggesting that their effects are not simply cumulative, or even are competitive.
Authors: J Decety; D Perani; M Jeannerod; V Bettinardi; B Tadary; R Woods; J C Mazziotta; F Fazio Journal: Nature Date: 1994-10-13 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Thomas Cattagni; Gil Scaglioni; Davy Laroche; Jacques Van Hoecke; Vincent Gremeaux; Alain Martin Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 5.750