4.3 Article

Feedback controlled force enhancement and activation reduction of voluntarily activated quadriceps femoris during sub-maximal muscle action

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROMYOGRAPHY AND KINESIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 117-123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.10.010

关键词

History dependence; In vivo; Passive force enhancement; EMG-torque relation; Physiological cross-sectional area; Electromyography

资金

  1. TUM Graduate School's Faculty Graduate Center of Sport and Heath Science at the Technische Universitat Munchen, Germany
  2. German Research Foundation [SCHW 1169/3-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stretch of activated muscles leads to enhanced forces compared to isometric contractions at the same muscle length and the same level of activation. This so-called residual force enhancement (RFE) is thought to be a property of all muscles and preparations. However, observations concerning the existence, amount and duration of RFE are inconsistent, especially for voluntary activated large human muscles. Therefore, physiological relevance for daily activity is still questionable and the purpose of this study was to examine whether RFE is present in voluntary sub-maximal activated quadriceps femoris (QF). Seated in a rotational dynamometer with EMG attached to superficial parts of QF, 30 subjects performed isometric and isometric-eccentric-isometric contractions (20 degrees stretch, omega = 60 degrees s(-1)) at 30% and 60% of maximum voluntary activation (MVA) and contraction (MVC). To account for the complexity of the multi-headed QF, a compensation model based on physiological cross-sectional area and individual EMG-torque relations was used to interpret EMG data. For both levels of intensity and both feedback control strategies, ANOVA identified significant RFE (at the same level of activation) and reduced activation (at the same level of torque). Against expectations, RFE was independent of the level of activation. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据