Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Physiology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Institute of Movement Sciences and Sports Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland;
Institute of Movement Sciences and Sports Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland;
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2014 May 15;116(10):1281-9. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01015.2013. Epub 2014 Mar 27.
We compared the extent and origin of muscle fatigue induced by short-pulse-low-frequency [conventional (CONV)] and wide-pulse-high-frequency (WPHF) neuromuscular electrical stimulation. We expected CONV contractions to mainly originate from depolarization of axonal terminal branches (spatially determined muscle fiber recruitment) and WPHF contractions to be partly produced via a central pathway (motor unit recruitment according to size principle). Greater neuromuscular fatigue was, therefore, expected following CONV compared with WPHF. Fourteen healthy subjects underwent 20 WPHF (1 ms-100 Hz) and CONV (50 μs-25 Hz) evoked isometric triceps surae contractions (work/rest periods 20:40 s) at an initial target of 10% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force. Force-time integral of the 20 evoked contractions (FTI) was used as main index of muscle fatigue; MVC force loss was also quantified. Central and peripheral fatigue were assessed by voluntary activation level and paired stimulation amplitudes, respectively. FTI in WPHF was significantly lower than in CONV (21,717 ± 11,541 vs. 37,958 ± 9,898 N·s P<0,001). The reductions in MVC force (WPHF: -7.0 ± 2.7%; CONV: -6.2 ± 2.5%; P < 0.01) and paired stimulation amplitude (WPHF: -8.0 ± 4.0%; CONV: -7.4 ± 6.1%; P < 0.001) were similar between conditions, whereas no change was observed for voluntary activation level (P > 0.05). Overall, our results showed a different motor unit recruitment pattern between the two neuromuscular electrical stimulation modalities with a lower FTI indicating greater muscle fatigue for WPHF, possibly limiting the presumed benefits for rehabilitation programs.
我们比较了短脉冲低频[传统(CONV)]和宽脉冲高频(WPHF)神经肌肉电刺激引起的肌肉疲劳程度和起源。我们预计 CONV 收缩主要源自轴突末梢分支的去极化(空间确定的肌纤维募集),而 WPHF 收缩部分通过中枢途径产生(根据大小原则的运动单位募集)。因此,与 WPHF 相比,CONV 后预计会出现更大的神经肌肉疲劳。14 名健康受试者进行了 20 次 WPHF(1 ms-100 Hz)和 CONV(50 μs-25 Hz)诱发的等长比目鱼肌收缩(工作/休息期 20:40 s),初始目标为 10%的最大随意收缩(MVC)力。20 次诱发收缩的力时积分(FTI)用作肌肉疲劳的主要指标;还量化了 MVC 力损失。通过自愿激活水平和配对刺激幅度分别评估中枢和外周疲劳。WPHF 的 FTI 明显低于 CONV(21717 ± 11541 对 37958 ± 9898 N·s,P<0.001)。MVC 力的降低(WPHF:-7.0 ± 2.7%;CONV:-6.2 ± 2.5%;P<0.01)和配对刺激幅度(WPHF:-8.0 ± 4.0%;CONV:-7.4 ± 6.1%;P<0.001)在两种条件下相似,而自愿激活水平没有变化(P > 0.05)。总的来说,我们的结果表明两种神经肌肉电刺激方式之间存在不同的运动单位募集模式,FTI 较低表明 WPHF 的肌肉疲劳程度更高,这可能限制了其对康复计划的预期益处。