4.4 Article

Time to task failure in shoulder elevation is associated to increase in amplitude and to spatial heterogeneity of upper trapezius mechanomyographic signals

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 325-333

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-007-0589-2

关键词

muscle fatigue; spatial dependency; accelerometer; topographical maps

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the changes in mechanomyographic (MMG) topographical maps of the upper trapezius muscle during short and sustained isometric contractions until task failure. MMG signals were detected over the dominant upper trapezius muscle of 12 volunteers using an unstructured grid of 12 accelerometers. The subjects performed isometric shoulder elevation at (1) maximal voluntary contraction (100% MVC), (2) 10-20-40-60-80-100% MVC for 10 s and (3) 20% MVC until task failure. Maps of absolute and normalised average rectified value (ARV) and mean power frequency (MNF) were obtained from the two-dimensional MMG recordings. Entropy (measure of heterogeneity of maps) of the MMG ARV and MNF distributions, changes over time of ARV and MNF, and the ratio between ARV at the task failure and at 100% MVC (activation ratio) were analysed in relation to the time to task failure. For the short duration and sustained contractions, MMG ARV and MNF depended on accelerometer location (P < 0.001) while normalised values did not. The activation ratio was positively correlated with the time to task failure (R-2 = 0.36, P < 0.05). Lower ARV entropy values (P < 0.05), greater MMG ARV increase during the endurance test (P < 0.001) and higher values of ARV activation ratio (P < 0.001) were observed in the subjects with longer time to task failure. The results demonstrate an association between time to task failure and MMG activation ratio and ARV entropy, which indicates that spatial variations in MMG activity and its changes over time underlie functional mechanisms for the maintenance of force during fatiguing contractions.

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