Tallent Jamie, Goodall Stuart, Kidgell Dawson J, Durbaba Rade, Howatson Glyn
School of Sport Health and Applied Science, St Mary's University, Twickenham, United Kingdom.
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom.
Physiol Rep. 2019 Sep;7(17):e14201. doi: 10.14814/phy2.14201.
Determining a single compound maximal motor response (M ) or an average superimposed M response (M ) are commonly used reference values in experiments eliciting raw electromyographic, motor evoked potentials, H-reflexes, and V-waves. However, existing literature is limited in detailing the most appropriate method to normalize these electrophysiological measures. Due to the accessibility of assessment from a cortical and spinal perspective, the tibialis anterior is increasingly used in literature and hence investigated in this study. The aims of the present study were to examine the differences and level of agreement in M /M under different muscle actions and contraction intensities. Following a familiarization session, 22 males visited the laboratory on a single occasion. M was recorded under 10% isometric and 25% and 100% shortening and lengthening maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) at an angular velocity of 15° sec . M was also recorded during 100% shortening and lengthening with an average of five responses recorded. There were no differences in M or M between contraction types. All variables showed large, positive correlations (P < 0.001, r ≥ 0.64). M amplitude was larger (P < 0.001) at 100% shortening and lengthening intensity compared to M amplitude at 10% isometric and 25% lengthening MVC. Bland-Altman plots revealed a bias toward higher M at the higher contraction intensities. Despite M being significantly smaller than M (P < 0.001) at 100% MVC, M showed a large positive correlation (P < 0.001, r ≥ 0.64) with all variables. It is our recommendation that M should be recorded at specific contraction intensity but not necessarily a specific contraction type.
确定单个复合最大运动反应(M )或平均叠加M反应(M )是在引出原始肌电图、运动诱发电位、H反射和V波的实验中常用的参考值。然而,现有文献在详细说明归一化这些电生理测量的最合适方法方面有限。由于从皮质和脊髓角度进行评估的可及性,胫骨前肌在文献中越来越多地被使用,因此在本研究中对其进行了调查。本研究的目的是检查在不同肌肉动作和收缩强度下M /M 的差异和一致性水平。在一次熟悉训练后,22名男性单次访问实验室。在15°/秒的角速度下,在10%等长收缩、25%和100%缩短及延长最大自主收缩(MVC)时记录M 。在100%缩短和延长期间也记录M ,平均记录五次反应。收缩类型之间的M 或M 没有差异。所有变量都显示出高度正相关(P < 0.001,r ≥ 0.64)。与10%等长收缩和25%延长MVC时的M 幅度相比,100%缩短和延长强度下的M 幅度更大(P < 0.001)。Bland-Altman图显示在较高收缩强度下M 有偏高的偏差。尽管在100%MVC时M 明显小于M (P < 0.001),但M 与所有变量都显示出高度正相关(P < 0.001,r ≥ 0.64)。我们建议应在特定收缩强度下记录M ,但不一定是特定的收缩类型。