A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks

This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force ta...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of environmental research and public health 2020-04, Vol.17 (8), p.2799
Hauptverfasser: Jeon, Sunggun, Miller, William M, Ye, Xin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 8
container_start_page 2799
container_title International journal of environmental research and public health
container_volume 17
creator Jeon, Sunggun
Miller, William M
Ye, Xin
description This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Both agonist and antagonist muscles' EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative ( = 0.010) and more positive ( = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/ijerph17082799
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7215511</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2394908039</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-6f458eaff57d85ef3410dda77c55fb007febc7accf3c5e8e1f6458c3256298ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkc1LAzEQxYMoVqtXjxLw4mVrstlsdi-C1K-C4qH1HNJ00qbubmqSWvzvjVhFPc3A_ObxHg-hE0oGjNXkwi7BrxZUkCoXdb2DDmhZkqwoCd39tffQYQhLQlhVlPU-6rGc5VwQcYDGV3jo2pXyNrgOO4MfXXQeP3c2pkMXvWvwOHoVYW4h4CnEDUCHJxuHr60x4KGLeBRcC9FbjScqvIQjtGdUE-B4O_vo-fZmMrzPHp7uRsOrh0wXVRGz0hS8AmUMF7OKg2EFJbOZEkJzbqaECANTLZTWhmkOFVBTpgednJd5XSW-jy6_dFfraQsznax41ciVt63y79IpK_9eOruQc_cmRU45pzQJnG8FvHtdQ4iytUFD06gO3DrInNVFTSrC6oSe_UOXbu27FO-TYqUgqYNEDb4o7V0IHsyPGUrkZ1_yb1_p4fR3hB_8uyD2AcLyk4U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2393670170</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Jeon, Sunggun ; Miller, William M ; Ye, Xin</creator><creatorcontrib>Jeon, Sunggun ; Miller, William M ; Ye, Xin</creatorcontrib><description>This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Both agonist and antagonist muscles' EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative ( = 0.010) and more positive ( = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1660-4601</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1661-7827</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1660-4601</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082799</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32325707</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Action potential ; Agonists ; Contraction ; Elbow ; Elbow (anatomy) ; Electromyography ; Exercise ; Isometric ; Motor task performance ; Muscle contraction ; Muscle fatigue ; Muscles ; Musculoskeletal system ; Physical fitness ; Recruitment ; Regression analysis ; Sexes ; Studies</subject><ispartof>International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020-04, Vol.17 (8), p.2799</ispartof><rights>2020. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 by the authors. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-6f458eaff57d85ef3410dda77c55fb007febc7accf3c5e8e1f6458c3256298ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-6f458eaff57d85ef3410dda77c55fb007febc7accf3c5e8e1f6458c3256298ef3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1349-3011 ; 0000-0002-6028-2295</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215511/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7215511/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32325707$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jeon, Sunggun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, William M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Xin</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks</title><title>International journal of environmental research and public health</title><addtitle>Int J Environ Res Public Health</addtitle><description>This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Both agonist and antagonist muscles' EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative ( = 0.010) and more positive ( = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task.</description><subject>Action potential</subject><subject>Agonists</subject><subject>Contraction</subject><subject>Elbow</subject><subject>Elbow (anatomy)</subject><subject>Electromyography</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Isometric</subject><subject>Motor task performance</subject><subject>Muscle contraction</subject><subject>Muscle fatigue</subject><subject>Muscles</subject><subject>Musculoskeletal system</subject><subject>Physical fitness</subject><subject>Recruitment</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Sexes</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>1660-4601</issn><issn>1661-7827</issn><issn>1660-4601</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkc1LAzEQxYMoVqtXjxLw4mVrstlsdi-C1K-C4qH1HNJ00qbubmqSWvzvjVhFPc3A_ObxHg-hE0oGjNXkwi7BrxZUkCoXdb2DDmhZkqwoCd39tffQYQhLQlhVlPU-6rGc5VwQcYDGV3jo2pXyNrgOO4MfXXQeP3c2pkMXvWvwOHoVYW4h4CnEDUCHJxuHr60x4KGLeBRcC9FbjScqvIQjtGdUE-B4O_vo-fZmMrzPHp7uRsOrh0wXVRGz0hS8AmUMF7OKg2EFJbOZEkJzbqaECANTLZTWhmkOFVBTpgednJd5XSW-jy6_dFfraQsznax41ciVt63y79IpK_9eOruQc_cmRU45pzQJnG8FvHtdQ4iytUFD06gO3DrInNVFTSrC6oSe_UOXbu27FO-TYqUgqYNEDb4o7V0IHsyPGUrkZ1_yb1_p4fR3hB_8uyD2AcLyk4U</recordid><startdate>20200418</startdate><enddate>20200418</enddate><creator>Jeon, Sunggun</creator><creator>Miller, William M</creator><creator>Ye, Xin</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1349-3011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-2295</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200418</creationdate><title>A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks</title><author>Jeon, Sunggun ; Miller, William M ; Ye, Xin</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-6f458eaff57d85ef3410dda77c55fb007febc7accf3c5e8e1f6458c3256298ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Action potential</topic><topic>Agonists</topic><topic>Contraction</topic><topic>Elbow</topic><topic>Elbow (anatomy)</topic><topic>Electromyography</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Isometric</topic><topic>Motor task performance</topic><topic>Muscle contraction</topic><topic>Muscle fatigue</topic><topic>Muscles</topic><topic>Musculoskeletal system</topic><topic>Physical fitness</topic><topic>Recruitment</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Sexes</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jeon, Sunggun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, William M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ye, Xin</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>International journal of environmental research and public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jeon, Sunggun</au><au>Miller, William M</au><au>Ye, Xin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks</atitle><jtitle>International journal of environmental research and public health</jtitle><addtitle>Int J Environ Res Public Health</addtitle><date>2020-04-18</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>2799</spage><pages>2799-</pages><issn>1660-4601</issn><issn>1661-7827</issn><eissn>1660-4601</eissn><abstract>This study examined the motor unit (MU) control strategies for non-fatiguing isometric elbow flexion tasks at 40% and 70% maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Nineteen healthy individuals performed two submaximal tasks with similar torque levels: contracting against an immovable object (force task), and maintaining the elbow joint angle against an external load (position task). Surface electromyographic (EMG) signals were collected from the agonist and antagonist muscles. The signals from the agonist were decomposed into individual action potential trains. The linear regression analysis was used to examine the MU recruitment threshold (RT) versus mean firing rates (MFR), and RT versus derecruitment threshold (DT) relationships. Both agonist and antagonist muscles' EMG amplitudes did not differ between two tasks. The linear slopes of the MU RT versus MFR and RT versus DT relationships during the position task were more negative ( = 0.010) and more positive ( = 0.023), respectively, when compared to the force task. To produce a similar force output, the position task may rely less on the recruitment of relatively high-threshold MUs. Additionally, as the force output decreases, MUs tend to derecruit at a higher force level during the position task.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>32325707</pmid><doi>10.3390/ijerph17082799</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1349-3011</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6028-2295</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1660-4601
ispartof International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020-04, Vol.17 (8), p.2799
issn 1660-4601
1661-7827
1660-4601
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7215511
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; MDPI - Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Action potential
Agonists
Contraction
Elbow
Elbow (anatomy)
Electromyography
Exercise
Isometric
Motor task performance
Muscle contraction
Muscle fatigue
Muscles
Musculoskeletal system
Physical fitness
Recruitment
Regression analysis
Sexes
Studies
title A Comparison of Motor Unit Control Strategies between Two Different Isometric Tasks
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T08%3A48%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparison%20of%20Motor%20Unit%20Control%20Strategies%20between%20Two%20Different%20Isometric%20Tasks&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20environmental%20research%20and%20public%20health&rft.au=Jeon,%20Sunggun&rft.date=2020-04-18&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=2799&rft.pages=2799-&rft.issn=1660-4601&rft.eissn=1660-4601&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/ijerph17082799&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2394908039%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2393670170&rft_id=info:pmid/32325707&rfr_iscdi=true