Djahid Kennouche1, Giorgio Varesco1, Loïc Espeit1, Léonard Féasson1,2, Robin Souron1,3, Vianney Rozand1, Guillaume Y Millet1,4, Thomas Lapole5. 1. Univ Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, EA 7424, F-42023, Saint-Etienne, France. 2. Unité de Myologie, Centre Référent Maladies Neuromusculaires - Euro-NMD, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Saint-Etienne, 42055, Saint Etienne, France. 3. UFR STAPS de Toulon, Unité de Recherche IAPS (N°201723207F), UFR STAPS de Toulon, Toulon, France. 4. Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), Paris, France. 5. Univ Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, EA 7424, F-42023, Saint-Etienne, France. thomas.lapole@univ-st-etienne.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to directly compare the effects of 30 min muscle (VIBmuscle) vs. tendon (VIBtendon) local vibration (LV) to the quadriceps on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and rate of torque development (RTD) as well as on central nervous system excitability (i.e. motoneuron and cortical excitability). METHODS: Before (PRE) and immediately after (POST) LV applied to the quadriceps muscle or its tendon, we investigated MVIC and RTD (STUDY #1; n = 20) or vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM) and rectus femoris (RF) electromyography responses to thoracic electrical stimulation (TMEPs; motoneuron excitability) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (MEPs; corticospinal excitability) (STUDY #2; n = 17). MEP/TMEP ratios were further calculated to quantify changes in cortical excitability. RESULTS: MVIC decreased at POST (P = 0.017) without any difference between VIBtendon and VIBmuscle, while RTD decreased for VIBtendon (P = 0.013) but not VIBmuscle. TMEP amplitudes were significantly decreased for all muscles (P = 0.014, P < 0.001 and P = 0.004 for VL, VM and RF, respectively) for both LV sites. While no changes were observed for MEP amplitude, MEP/TMEP ratios increased at POST for VM and RF muscles (P = 0.009 and P = 0.013, respectively) for both VIBtendon and VIBmuscle. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that prolonged muscle and tendon LV are similarly effective in modulating central nervous system excitability and decreasing maximal force. Yet, altered explosive performance after tendon but not muscle LV suggests greater neural alterations when tendons are vibrated.
PURPOSE: The present study aimed to directly compare the effects of 30 min muscle (VIBmuscle) vs. tendon (VIBtendon) local vibration (LV) to the quadriceps on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) and rate of torque development (RTD) as well as on central nervous system excitability (i.e. motoneuron and cortical excitability). METHODS: Before (PRE) and immediately after (POST) LV applied to the quadriceps muscle or its tendon, we investigated MVIC and RTD (STUDY #1; n = 20) or vastus lateralis (VL), vastus medialis (VM) and rectus femoris (RF) electromyography responses to thoracic electrical stimulation (TMEPs; motoneuron excitability) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (MEPs; corticospinal excitability) (STUDY #2; n = 17). MEP/TMEP ratios were further calculated to quantify changes in cortical excitability. RESULTS: MVIC decreased at POST (P = 0.017) without any difference between VIBtendon and VIBmuscle, while RTD decreased for VIBtendon (P = 0.013) but not VIBmuscle. TMEP amplitudes were significantly decreased for all muscles (P = 0.014, P < 0.001 and P = 0.004 for VL, VM and RF, respectively) for both LV sites. While no changes were observed for MEP amplitude, MEP/TMEP ratios increased at POST for VM and RF muscles (P = 0.009 and P = 0.013, respectively) for both VIBtendon and VIBmuscle. CONCLUSION: The present results suggest that prolonged muscle and tendon LV are similarly effective in modulating central nervous system excitability and decreasing maximal force. Yet, altered explosive performance after tendon but not muscle LV suggests greater neural alterations when tendons are vibrated.
Authors: C J de Ruiter; R M van der Linden; M J A van der Zijden; A P Hollander; A de Haan Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2002-11-09 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Alejandra Barrera-Curiel; Ryan J Colquhoun; Jesus A Hernandez-Sarabia; Jason M DeFreitas Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Alessandro Del Vecchio; Francesco Negro; Ales Holobar; Andrea Casolo; Jonathan P Folland; Francesco Felici; Dario Farina Journal: J Physiol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Alessandro Del Vecchio; Andrea Casolo; Jakob Lund Dideriksen; Per Aagaard; Francesco Felici; Deborah Falla; Dario Farina Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2021-11-18
Authors: Claire Coulondre; Robin Souron; Alexandre Rambaud; Étienne Dalmais; Loïc Espeit; Thomas Neri; Alban Pinaroli; Gilles Estour; Guillaume Y Millet; Thomas Rupp; Léonard Feasson; Pascal Edouard; Thomas Lapole Journal: Ann Phys Rehabil Med Date: 2021-11-13