Measuring voluntary quadriceps activation: Effect of visual feedback and stimulus delivery |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Biomechanics Laboratories, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States;2. Sports Medicine Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States;3. Department of Physiology & Biomedical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States;4. Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States;5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States;1. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, 209 Fetzer Hall, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill 27599, NC, United States;2. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill 27599, NC, United States;3. Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill 27519, NC, United States;4. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, NC, United States;5. Department of Kinesiology, 1400 Spring Garden Street, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro 27412, NC, United States;6. Division of Rheumatology, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Boston 02111, MA, United States;7. Injury Prevention Research Center, CVS Plaza, Suite 500 CB# 7505, 137 E Franklin St, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC 27599, United States;8. Thurston Arthritis Research Center, Thurston Building, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 27599, United States;1. KU Leuven Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Research Group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tervuursevest 101 b1501, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium;2. KU Leuven Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering Technology Services, Andreas Vesaliusstraat 13, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;3. KU Leuven Cardiovascular and Respiratory Rehabilitation Research Group, Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Kinesiology and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tervuursevest 101 b1501, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium;4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, AZ Herentals Hospital, Nederrij 133, 2200 Herentals, Belgium;5. Department of Orthopedics, University Hospitals Leuven, Campus Pellenberg, Leuven, Weligerveld 1, 3212 Pellenberg, Belgium;1. Human Movement Science Curriculum, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States;2. Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States;3. Department of Orthopaedics, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, United States |
| |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Quadriceps voluntary activation, assessed via the superimposed burst technique, has been extensively studied in a variety of populations as a measure of quadriceps function. However, a variety of stimulus delivery techniques have been employed, which may influence the level of voluntary activation as calculated via the central activation ratio (CAR). The purpose was to determine the effect of visual feedback, stimulus delivery, and perceived discomfort on maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) peak torque and the CAR. Methods: Quadriceps CAR was assessed in 14 individuals on two days using three stimulus delivery methods; (1) manual without visual feedback, (2) manual with visual feedback, and (3) automated with visual feedback. Results: MVIC peak torque and the CAR were not different between the automated with visual feedback (MVIC = 3.25, SE = 0.14 N m/kg; CAR = 88.63, SE = 1.75%) and manual with visual feedback (MVIC = 3.26, SE = 0.13 N m/kg, P = 0.859; CAR = 89.06, SE = 1.70%, P = 0.39) stimulus delivery methods. MVIC (2.99, SE = 0.12 N m/kg) and CAR (85.32, SE = 2.10%) were significantly lower using manual without visual feedback compared to manual with visual feedback and automated with visual feedback (CAR P < 0.001; MVIC P < 0.001). Perceived discomfort was lower in the second session (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Utilizing visual feedback ensures participant MVIC, and may provide a more accurate assessment of quadriceps voluntary activation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Superimposed burst Central activation ratio Perceived discomfort Reliability Agreement |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
