This study aimed to examine the potential sex differences in wide-pulse high-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation (WPHF NMES)-evoked force. Twenty-two subjects (10 women) completed this study. Prior to the stimulation, the visual analogue scale (VAS) for discomfort and the rating of perceived exertion (RPE) were measured, followed by the isometric strength of the dominant elbow flexor muscles. The subjects then completed ten, 10-s on 10-s off WPHF NMES (pulse width: 1 ms, frequency: 100 Hz) at maximum tolerable intensities. The subjects’ RPE was recorded after each set, and the VAS was measured following the last stimulation. The stimulation induced significant increase in discomfort for both sexes, with women having greater discomfort than men (men: 22.4 ± 14.9 mm, women: 39.7 ± 12.7 mm). The stimulation amplitude was significantly greater in men than in women (men: 16.2 ± 6.3 mA, women: 12.0 ± 4.5 mA). For the evoked force, only the relative NMES-evoked force was found greater in women than in men (men: 8.96 ± 6.51%, women: 17.08 ± 12.61%). In conclusion, even at the maximum tolerable intensity, WPHF NMES evoked larger relative elbow flexion force in women than in men, with women experiencing greater discomfort.

We aim to examine the cross-education effects of unilateral muscle neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training combined with illusionary mirror visual feedback (MVF). Fifteen adults (NMES + MVF: 5; NMES: 5, Control: 5) completed this study. The experimental groups completed a 3-week NMES training on their dominant elbow flexor muscle. The NMES + MVF group had a mirror placed in the midsagittal plane between their upper arms, so a visual illusion was created in which their non-dominant arms appeared to be stimulated. Baseline and post-training measurements included both arms’ isometric strength, voluntary activation level, and resting twitch. Cross-education effects were not observed from all dependent variables. For the unilateral muscle, both experimental groups showed greater strength increases when compared to the control (isometric strength % changes: NMES + MVF vs. NMES vs. Control = 6.31 ± 4.56% vs. 4.72 ± 8.97% vs. −4.04 ± 3.85%, p < 0.05). Throughout the training, even with the maximally tolerated NMES, the NMES + MVF group had greater perceived exertion and discomfort than the NMES. Additionally, the NMES-evoked force increased throughout the training for both groups. Our data does not support that NMES combined with or without MVF induces cross-education. However, the stimulated muscle becomes more responsive to the NMES and can become stronger following the training.

No abstract