Activation patterns of mono‐ and bi‐articular arm muscles as a function of force and movement direction of the wrist in humans

Bolhuis, B.M. van; Gielen, C.C.A.M.; Schenau, G.J. van Ingen

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7793.1998.313br.x

Cited by 47 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Accordingly, soleus is the only monoarticular muscle in the PF, and rectus femoris is the only biarticular muscle in the KE. Bolhuis et al (12) also reported that monoand biarticular muscles present different EMG activity patterns during voluntary contractions. Whereas monoarticular muscle EMG activity is influenced both by force and movement direction, EMG activity of biarticular muscles only depends on force direction (12).…”

Section: Adjustments During the Fatiguing Taskmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Bolhuis et al (12) also reported that monoand biarticular muscles present different EMG activity patterns during voluntary contractions. Whereas monoarticular muscle EMG activity is influenced both by force and movement direction, EMG activity of biarticular muscles only depends on force direction (12). Thus it can be conjectured that the differences in EMG activity alterations observed in this study could be related to anatomical function of the different muscle groups.…”

Section: Adjustments During the Fatiguing Taskmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of neuromuscular adjustments associated with sustained isometric contractions of four different muscle groups

Neyroud

Rüttimann

Mannion

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Neyroud D, Rüttimann J, Mannion AF, Millet GY, Maffiuletti NA, Kayser B, Place N. Comparison of neuromuscular adjustments associated with sustained isometric contractions of four different muscle groups. J Appl Physiol 114: 1426 -1434, 2013. First published March 7, 2013 doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01539.2012.-The extent and characteristics of muscle fatigue of different muscle groups when subjected to a similar fatiguing task may differ. Thirteen healthy young men performed sustained contractions at 50% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force until task failure, with four different muscle groups, over two sessions. Per session, one upper limb and one lower limb muscle group were tested (knee extensors and thumb adductor, or plantar and elbow flexors). Changes in voluntary activation level and contractile properties were derived from doublet responses evoked during and after MVCs before and after exercise. Time to task failure differed (P Ͻ 0.05) between muscle groups (220 Ϯ 64 s for plantar flexors, 114 Ϯ 27 s for thumb adductor, 77 Ϯ 25 s for knee extensors, and 72 Ϯ 14 s for elbow flexors). MVC force loss immediately after voluntary task failure was similar (Ϫ30 Ϯ 11% for plantar flexors, Ϫ37 Ϯ 13% for thumb adductor, Ϫ34 Ϯ 15% for knee extensors, and Ϫ40 Ϯ 12% for elbow flexors, P Ͼ 0.05). Voluntary activation was decreased for plantar flexors only (from 95 Ϯ 5% to 82 Ϯ 9%, P Ͻ 0.05). Potentiated evoked doublet amplitude was more depressed for upper limb muscles (Ϫ59.3 Ϯ 14.7% for elbow flexors and Ϫ60.1 Ϯ 24.1% for thumb adductor, P Ͻ 0.05) than for knee extensors (Ϫ28 Ϯ 15%, P Ͻ 0.05); no reduction was found in plantar flexors (Ϫ7 Ϯ 12%, P Ͼ 0.05). In conclusion, despite different times to task failure when sustaining an isometric contraction at 50% MVC force for as long as possible, diverse muscle groups present similar loss of MVC force after task failure. Thus the extent of muscle fatigue is not affected by time to task failure, whereas this latter determines the etiology of fatigue. endurance time; fatigue; maximal voluntary contraction; contractile properties; surface electromyography TIME TO TASK FAILURE of a sustained submaximal isometric contraction (i.e., endurance time, ET) depends on physiological factors such as relative force level (30, 35), muscle fiber type composition (16,51,77), muscular activation strategy (6,19,38), muscle size (36), and length (54, 58) but also depends on psychological factors such as motivation, mood, and expectation (24). Whereas the task dependency of ET is well documented (23,25,26), little is known about muscle fatigue characteristics induced by a given task sustained until failure in different muscle groups, in the same individuals. Frey-Law and Avin (28) suggested that no single fatigue model applies to all muscles. Their meta-analysis showed large differences in ET depending on the muscle group considered, especially at low contraction intensities. However, it is unknown whether the extent of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force loss immediately after task ...

show abstract

Section: Adjustments During the Fatiguing Taskmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Adjustments During the Fatiguing Taskmentioning

confidence: 98%

Comparison of neuromuscular adjustments associated with sustained isometric contractions of four different muscle groups

Neyroud

Rüttimann

Mannion

et al. 2013

Journal of Applied Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending on movement direction, muscles perform either concentric or eccentric contractions. The increased mono-articular muscle activity for movements in a particular direction (the so-called preferred movement direction, PMD) (van Bolhuis et al, 1998) could have been caused exclusively by the fact that the mono-articular muscles were shortening. When the mono-articular elbow flexor muscle was shortening during elbow flexion, the central nervous system might have increased its activity to generate the same force level as when it was lengthening during elbow extension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the mono-articular elbow flexor muscle was shortening during elbow flexion, the central nervous system might have increased its activity to generate the same force level as when it was lengthening during elbow extension. Van Bolhuis et al (1998) claimed that force-velocity effects could not have been a determining factor for muscle activation because movements were performed at a very low velocity resulting in small contraction velocities. Instead, they argued that movement direction is a parameter used by the nervous system for the control of mono-articular muscle activity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relevance of the Force-Velocity Relationship in the Activation of Mono- and Bi-Articular Muscles in Slow Arm Movements in Humans

Welter¹,

Bobbert²,

Bolhuis³

et al. 2000

Motor Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have investigated whether differences in EMG activity in mono-and biarticular muscles for concentric and eccentric contractions (van Bolhuis, Gielen, & van Ingen Schenau, 1998) have to be attributed to a specific muscle coordination strategy or whether they are merely a demonstration of adaptations necessary to adjust for muscle contractile properties. Slow, multi-joint ann movements were studied in a horizontal plane with an external force applied at the wrist. Kinematics and electromyography data from 10 subjects were combined with data from a 3-D model of the arm and a Hill-type muscle model. Data for both mono-and bi-articular muscles revealed a higher activation in concentric than in eccentric contractions. The model calculations indicated that the measured difference in activation (20%) was much larger than expected based on the force-velocity relationship (predicting changes of -5%).Although these findings eliminate the force-velocity relationship as the main explanation for changes in EMG, it cannot be ruled out that other muscle contractile properties, such as history dependence of muscle force, determine muscle activation levels in the task that was studied.

show abstract

“…Since the movements were very slow, any differences in muscle activation due to muscle mechanical contributions, such as the force-velocity relation ((Bolhuis et al, 1998) could be excluded. Also explanations for the different activation patterns based on variations simply due to co-contraction could be ruled out (Theeuwen et al, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quest for Control Parameters in Motor Control May Be an Artifact of Experimental Paradigms

Gielen¹

2010

Motor Control

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Latash gives a nice overview of the present state of the art in our understanding of the control and coordination of movements with multiple (abundant?) degrees of freedom. The overview is excellent regarding the behavioral studies. However, some references to neurophysiological studies, which provide support for the concepts pointed out by Latash, are lacking. For example, when he outlines future directions for research, Latash speaks about "the lack of tools to study patterns of control variables (such as time patterns of λ for muscles and related control variables at the joint and whole-body levels) with sufficient accuracy." This is not completely correct as it is possible to investigate the activation of muscles in great detail using intramuscular wire electrodes, which measure the activity of single motor units. Van Zuylen et al. (1988) have given a detailed overview of the activation of arm muscles in the coordination of isometric flexion/extension and supination/pronation torques. These results show that the relative activation of muscles is very similar across subjects. Quite remarkably, the basic units for the coordination of isometric torques are not muscles, but subpopulations of motor units in a muscle, which each seem to have their own λ-value.In a later study Tax et al. (1989) showed that the relative activation, and therefore also the relative contribution of arm muscles to force at the hand, is different when subjects exert the same force isometrically or while moving. Since the movements were very slow, any differences in muscle activation due to muscle mechanical contributions, such as the force-velocity relation ((Bolhuis et al., 1998) could be excluded. Also explanations for the different activation patterns based on variations simply due to co-contraction could be ruled out (Theeuwen et al., 1994). In terms of the equilibrium-point hypothesis, this result implies a different setting of the various λ-values for the arm muscles in isometric and isotonic movement tasks and convincingly demonstrates the existence of multiple muscle-activation synergies to obtain the same torque output. Therefore, these results provide strong evidence in favour of the hypothetical control scheme in Figure 7 of Latash (2010), which postulates covariation parameters (CV2), which allow for a broad range of "good performance" activation patterns with the same motor output.In his overview, Latash emphasizes the principle of minimal muscle activation or minimal final action as a major principle for understanding human motor control. In my view there is little evidence in favour of this principle and, even worse,

show abstract

Activation patterns of mono‐ and bi‐articular arm muscles as a function of force and movement direction of the wrist in humans

Cited by 47 publications

References 24 publications

Comparison of neuromuscular adjustments associated with sustained isometric contractions of four different muscle groups

Comparison of neuromuscular adjustments associated with sustained isometric contractions of four different muscle groups

Relevance of the Force-Velocity Relationship in the Activation of Mono- and Bi-Articular Muscles in Slow Arm Movements in Humans

The Quest for Control Parameters in Motor Control May Be an Artifact of Experimental Paradigms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About