4.5 Article

Effects of speed and distance of muscle shortening on force depression during voluntary contractions

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
卷 33, 期 8, 页码 917-923

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0021-9290(00)00070-1

关键词

human skeletal muscle; history dependence of force production; voluntary contractions; electromyography; interpolated twitch technique

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of speed and distance of muscle shortening on the amount of force depression for voluntary contractions. Two experimental tests were performed. In the first test, subjects performed isometric knee extensor contractions following muscle shortening produced by isokinetic knee extensions over the range 25-50 degrees. Tn the second test, subjects performed isometric knee extensor contractions following muscle shortening produced by isokinetic knee extensions at two speeds: 20 and 240 degrees/s. Knee extensor moments, surface electromyographical (EMG) signals of quadriceps femoris, and interpolated twitch moments were measured during all contractions and were compared with the corresponding values obtained during purely isometric contractions. Force depression following muscle shortening for the voluntary contractions tested in this study did not depend on the distance or the speed of muscle shortening. These results are in contrast to the corresponding results in the literature obtained using artificial electrical stimulation in which force depression was always found to be directly related to the distance of shortening and inversely related to the speed of shortening. The difference in force depression as a function of the distance and speed of muscle shortening between voluntary and artificial electrical stimulation may be associated with changes in activation following the voluntary shortening contractions, whereas activation is controlled and constant in all artificial stimulation protocols. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science 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