4.3 Article

Neuromuscular rate of force development deficit in Parkinson disease

期刊

CLINICAL BIOMECHANICS
卷 45, 期 -, 页码 14-18

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.04.003

关键词

Skeletal muscle; Weakness; Central activation; Rate of force development

资金

  1. National Strength and Conditioning Association
  2. Dorothy/Daniel Gerwin Parkinson's Research Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bradykinesia and reduced neuromuscular force exist in Parkinson disease. The interpolated twitch technique has been used to evaluate central versus peripheral manifestations of neuromuscular strength in healthy, aging, and athletic populations, as well as moderate to advanced Parkinson disease, but this method has not been used in mild Parkinson disease. This study aimed to evaluate quadriceps femoris rate of force development and quantify potential central and peripheral activation deficits in individuals with Parkinson disease. Methods: Nine persons with mild Parkinson Disease (Hoehn & Yahr <= 2, Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale total score = mean 19.1 (SD 5.0)) and eight age-matched controls were recruited in a cross-sectional investigation. Quadriceps femoris voluntary and stimulated maximal force and rate of force development were evaluated using the interpolated twitch technique. Findings: Thirteen participants satisfactorily completed the protocol. Individuals with early Parkinson disease (n = 7) had significantly slower voluntary rate of force development (p = 0.008; d = 1.97) and rate of force development ratio (p = 0.004; d = 2.18) than controls (n = 6). No significant differences were found between groups for all other variables. Interpretations: Persons with mild-to-moderate Parkinson disease display disparities in rate of force development, even without deficits in maximal force. The inability to produce force at a rate comparable to controls is likely a downstream effect of central dysfunction of the motor pathway in Parkinson disease.

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