4.4 Article

Cortical voluntary activation testing methodology impacts central fatigue

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 9, 页码 1845-1857

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-017-3678-x

关键词

Central fatigue; Corticospinal excitability; Intracortical inhibition; Maximal muscle contraction; Recovery; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

资金

  1. University Savoie Mont Blanc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, cortical voluntary activation (VA(TMS)) is assessed by superimposing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), 75% MVC and 50% MVC, each contraction being interspersed with 5-10 s of relaxation. Here, we assessed whether this traditional approach (TRADI) underestimates central fatigue due to this short recovery compared to a continuous method (CONTI). VA(TMS), motor-evoked potential (MEP), and cortical silent period (CSP) of the vastus lateralis were determined in 12 young healthy adults before and after a 2-min sustained MVC of knee extensors in two randomly assigned sessions. In TRADI, evaluations comprised a 7-s rest between the three contractions (100, 75, and 50% MVC) and evaluation following the 2-min sustained MVC started after a minimal rest (3-4 s). In CONTI, evaluations were performed with no rest allowed between the three levels of contraction, and evaluation after the 2-min sustained MVC commenced without any rest. MVC was equally depressed at the end of the 2 min in both conditions. Post 2-min sustained MVC, VA(TMS) change was greater in CONTI than in TRADI (-29 (15)% [-42, -17] vs. -9 (4)% [-13, -5], respectively, P < 0.001). Differences were also observed between TRADI and CONTI for MEP and CSP immediately after the fatiguing exercise. All differences between the two methods disappeared after 2 min of recovery. After a 2-min sustained MVC, a few seconds of recovery change the amount of measured VA(TMS) and associated parameters of central fatigue. The continuous method should be preferred to determine deficits in voluntary activation.

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

4.4
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