Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Kenji Narazaki 1, Lars V. Jørgensen 1, 2, Jamie N. Justice 1, Benjamin K. Barry 1, 3 and Roger M. Enoka 1
1
Neurophysiology of Movement Laboratory, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
2Institute
of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Colorado 3Health and Exercise Science, School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 621.6
Introduction Recruitment threshold Influence of load compliance Higher threshold units
Previous studies have suggested that time-course changes in motor unit
activity during fatiguing contractions can vary with load type 3. Recruitment threshold torque (n = 6)
The influence of the load type on changes in the recruitment threshold Recruitment threshold torque FDI EMG at recruitment Position task Force task
of motor units is, however, still unclear. 45 p = 0.247 45 p = 0.204
13.0 21.5
*p < 0.05
Torque (%MVC)
Torque (%MVC)
Force task Force task
threshold of motor units in first dorsal interosseous (FDI) during two 20.5
Torque (%MVC)
12.5 35 35
submaximal fatiguing tasks that had different load compliances.
12.0 19.5
25 25
60 6
• There were no task differences during the first contraction in either
Position Task (%MVC)
4
50 25.0 22 recruitment or discharge characteristics 4.
p = 0.053
2
40 0
0 2 4
Force Task (%MVC)
6
22.5 20 • Mean discharge rate and discharge variability at recruitment both
30 increased during fatiguing contractions, but similarly for the two tasks.
20 20.0 18
First four Last four First four Last four • There was a trend of task differences in the recruitment threshold and
10 p = 0.109
*
discharge rate at recruitment for the high-threshold motor units.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 • Despite the more rapid recruitment of the motor unit pool during the
Servo-controlled torque motor Force Task (%MVC) position task 1, 3, there were no differences in the discharge
Torque profiles during the position and force tasks characteristics of the motor units at recruitment during the two fatiguing
Discharge rate at recruitment in the first contraction
Nominal moment arm contractions.
20 Position Task Force Task
Inertial torque: Rate of torque development at 4.3 ± 3.3 4.3 ± 3.2
Position Task (pps)
Shaft angle relative to the horizontal line Linear fit of torque at recruitment 0.898 ± 0.118 0.902 ± 0.085
References
10
1. Maluf KS, Shinohara M, Stephenson JL, Enoka RM. Muscle activation and time to task failure differ with load type and
Torque during hold phase (%MVC) 21.0 ± 15.6 20.9 ± 15.6 contraction intensity for a human hand muscle. Exp Brain Res 167: 165-77, 2005.
Torque transducer Gravitational torque: 2. Moritz CT, Barry BK, Pascoe MA, Enoka RM. Discharge rate variability influences the variation in force fluctuations
5 across the working range of a hand muscle. J Neurophysiol 93: 2449-59, 2005.
WT Proportional to the nominal mass, and the cosine
of the shaft angle x nominal moment arm Coefficient of variation for torque 3.1 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 1.8* 3. Mottram CJ, Jakobi JM, Semmler JG, Enoka RM. Motor-unit activity differs with load type during a fatiguing contraction.
J Neurophysiol 93:1381-92, 2005.
Nominal mass 0 during hold phase (%) 4. Narazaki K, Barry BK, Justice JN, Enoka RM. The influence of load compliance on motor unit recruitment threshold.
0 5 10 15 20 Soc Neurosc Abstr 652.16, 2006.
Load simulation for the position task Force Task (pps)
*p < 0.05
Funding: NINDS NS43275 awarded to RME