Comparison of electrical nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and magnetic nerve stimulation to assess the neuromuscular function of the plantar flexor muscles

Introduction As it might lead to less discomfort, magnetic nerve stimulation (MNS) is increasingly used as an alternative to electrical stimulation methods. Yet, MNS and electrical nerve stimulation (ENS) and electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) have not been formally compared for the evaluation of p...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of applied physiology 2015-07, Vol.115 (7), p.1429-1439
Hauptverfasser: Neyroud, Daria, Temesi, John, Millet, Guillaume Y., Verges, Samuel, Maffiuletti, Nicola A., Kayser, Bengt, Place, Nicolas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction As it might lead to less discomfort, magnetic nerve stimulation (MNS) is increasingly used as an alternative to electrical stimulation methods. Yet, MNS and electrical nerve stimulation (ENS) and electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) have not been formally compared for the evaluation of plantar flexor neuromuscular function. Methods We quantified plantar flexor neuromuscular function with ENS, EMS and MNS in 10 volunteers in fresh and fatigued muscles. Central alterations were assessed through changes in voluntary activation level (VAL) and peripheral function through changes in M-wave, twitch and doublet (PS100) amplitudes. Discomfort associated with 100-Hz paired stimuli delivered with each method was evaluated on a 10-cm visual analog scale. Results VAL, agonist and antagonist M-wave amplitudes and PS100 were similar between the different methods in both fresh and fatigued states. Potentiated peak twitch was lower in EMS compared to ENS, whereas no difference was found between ENS and MNS for any parameter. Discomfort associated with MNS (1.5 ± 1.4 cm) was significantly less compared to ENS (5.5 ± 1.9 cm) and EMS (4.2 ± 2.6 cm) ( p  
ISSN:1439-6319
1439-6327
DOI:10.1007/s00421-015-3124-x