4.5 Article

History-dependence of isometric muscle force: Effect of prior stretch or shortening amplitude

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 40, 期 7, 页码 1518-1524

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.06.014

关键词

force enhancement; force depression; magnitude; cat soleus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well-recognised that steady-state isometric muscle force is decreased following active shortening (force depression, FD) and increased following active stretch (force enhancement, FE). It has also been demonstrated that passive muscle force is increased following active stretch (passive FE). Several studies have reported that FD increases with shortening amplitude and that FE and passive FE increase with stretch amplitude. Here, we investigate whether these trends continue with further increases in shortening or stretch amplitude. Experiments were performed using in situ cat soleus muscles (n = 8 for FD; n = 7 for FE and passive FE). FD, FE and passive FE were measured after shortening or stretch contractions that covered as wide a range of amplitudes as practically possible without damaging the muscles. FD increased approximately linearly with shortening amplitude, over the full range of amplitudes investigated. This is consistent with the hypothesis that FD arises from a stress-induced inhibition of crossbridges. FE increased with stretch amplitude only up to a point, and then levelled off. Passive FE, and the transient increase in force at the end of stretch, showed relationships to stretch amplitude that were qualitatively very similar to the relationship for FE, increasing only until the same critical stretch amplitude had been reached. We conclude that FE and passive FE do not increase with stretch amplitude under all circumstances. This finding has important consequences for determining the mechanisms underlying FE and passive FE because any mechanism that is proposed to explain them must be able to predict it. (C) 2006 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

4.5
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