4.0 Article

Optimal pennation angle of the primary ankle plantar and dorsiflexors: Variations with sex, contraction intensity, and limb

Journal

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BIOMECHANICS
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 255-263

Publisher

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jab.22.4.255

Keywords

ultrasound; in vivo; isometric contraction; modeling; gender

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [P20-RR16458] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R01-HD38582] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ultrasonography was used to measure the pennation angle of the human tibialis anterior (TA), lateral gastrocnemius (LG), medial gastrocnemius (MG), and soleus (Sol). The right and left legs of 8 male and 8 female subjects were tested at rest and during maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Joint angles were chosen to control muscle tendon lengths so that the muscles were near their optimal length within the lengthtension relationship. No differences in pennation angle were detected between the right and left legs. Another consistent finding was that the pennation angle at MVC was significantly greater than at rest for all muscles tested. Optimal pennation angles for the TA, MG, and Sol were significantly greater for the men than for the women. Optimal pennation angles for the TA, LG, MG, and Sol for the male subjects were 14.3 degrees, 23.7 degrees, 34.6 degrees, and 40.1 degrees respectively, whereas values of 12.1 degrees, 16.3 degrees, 27.3 degrees, and 26.3 degrees were recorded for the female subjects. The results of this study suggest the following: (1) similar values for pennation angle can be used for the right and left TA, LG, MG, and Sol; (2) pennation angle is significantly greater at MVC than at rest for all muscles tested; and (3) sex-specific values for optimal pennation angle should be used when modeling the force-generating potential of the primary muscles responsible for ankle plantar and dorsiflexion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available