4.6 Article

Extra Forces induced by wide-pulse, high-frequency electrical stimulation: Occurrence, magnitude, variability and underlying mechanisms

Journal

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 7, Pages 1400-1412

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.10.001

Keywords

NMES; Extra Forces; Triceps surae; Responder; EMG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: In contrast to conventional (CONV) neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), the use of wide-pulse, high-frequencies (WPHF) can generate higher forces than expected by the direct activation of motor axons alone. We aimed at investigating the occurrence, magnitude, variability and underlying neuromuscular mechanisms of these Extra Forces (EF). Methods: Electrically-evoked isometric plantar flexion force was recorded in 42 healthy subjects. Additionally, twitch potentiation, H-reflex and M-wave responses were assessed in 13 participants. CONV (25 Hz, 0.05 ms) and WPHF (100 Hz, 1 ms) NMES consisted of five stimulation trains (20 s on-90 s off). Results: K-means clustering analysis disclosed a responder rate of almost 60%. Within this group of responders, force significantly increased from 4% to 16% of the maximal voluntary contraction force and H-reflexes were depressed after WPHF NMES. In contrast, non-responders showed neither EF nor H-reflex depression. Twitch potentiation and resting EMG data were similar between groups. Interestingly, a large inter-and intrasubject variability of EF was observed. Conclusion: The responder percentage was overestimated in previous studies. Significance: This study proposes a novel methodological framework for unraveling the neurophysiological mechanisms involved in EF and provides further evidence for a central contribution to EF in responders. (C) 2014 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available