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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of environmental research and public health 2020-04, Vol.17 (8), p.2799 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 |