Changes in motor unit activity during submaximal fatiguing contractions with two load compliances

Kenji Narazaki 1, Lars V. Jørgensen 1, 2, Jamie N. Justice 1, Benjamin K. Barry 1, 3 and Roger M. Enoka 1
1
Neurophysiology of Movement Laboratory, Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO
2Institute
of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Colorado 3Health and Exercise Science, School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia 621.6
Introduction Recruitment threshold Influence of load compliance Higher threshold units
Previous studies have suggested that time-course changes in motor unit
activity during fatiguing contractions can vary with load type 3. Recruitment threshold torque (n = 6)
The influence of the load type on changes in the recruitment threshold Recruitment threshold torque FDI EMG at recruitment Position task Force task
of motor units is, however, still unclear. 45 p = 0.247 45 p = 0.204
13.0 21.5
*p < 0.05

Normalized EMG (%Max)

Position task Position task
The aim of the study was to investigate changes in the recruitment

Torque (%MVC)

Torque (%MVC)
Force task Force task
threshold of motor units in first dorsal interosseous (FDI) during two 20.5

Torque (%MVC)
12.5 35 35
submaximal fatiguing tasks that had different load compliances.
12.0 19.5
25 25

Methods 11.5 18.5

15 15
30 s First four Last four First four Last four
• 26 single motor units (recruitment thresholds; 1.2 to 58.1 %MVC) from the Ramp-and-hold contractions 11.0 17.5
First four Last four First four Last four
FDI of 13 adults (8 men, 5 women; 26.5 ± 7.3 yr) were tracked using
Discharge rate at recruitment (n = 6)
subcutaneous and intramuscular fine-wire electrodes during the two *
submaximal fatiguing tasks: force task and position task. Position task Force task
20 p = 0.185 20 p = 0.054
• In the force task, the subjects performed a series of 16 ramp-and-hold

Discharge rate (pps)

Discharge rate (pps)

Recruitment threshold time Discharge rate at recruitment SPI EMG at recruitment
contractions (9.6 ± 2.1 min) with a target torque of 133 ± 23 % of
Time of the first spike in the first 0.5-s window
recruitment threshold by exerting an index finger abduction torque against with CV for ISI < 50% 10.5 12.5 15 15
*p < 0.05 Position task *p < 0.05 Position task

Normalized EMG (%Max)

a non-compliant object with the finger horizontal and while watching Force task * Force task

Discharge rate (pps)

torque feedback. Recruitment threshold torque (%MVC) 10.0 11.5
10 10
Torque at the recruitment threshold time
• In the position task, the subjects performed the same number of
ramp-and-hold contractions by maintaining the horizontal finger position Discharge Rate (pps) and CV for ISI (%) 9.5 10.5
5 5
with visual position feedback while resisting a simulated inertial load. at Recruitment threshold
First four Last four First four Last four
Average over the 0.5-s window 9.0 9.5
• A servo-controlled torque motor was used to generate the equivalent
torque for the position task by simulating an inertial load of variable mass Rate of torque development (n = 6)
3s 8.5 8.5
in a gravitational field. First four Last four First four Last four
Algorithm to determine recruitment threshold 2 Position Task Force Task
• The two tasks were performed on the same day in a randomized order with * First four Last four First four Last four
a rest interval of 35.1 ± 3.9 min. At recruitment (%MVC/s) 9.1 ± 4.6 8.0 ± 3.4 7.8 ± 3.8 8.9 ± 3.2
• Interference EMGs were recorded from the FDI, the antagonist muscle
second palmar interosseous (SPI), and the accessory muscle extensor Initial characteristics CV for ISI at recruitment EDC EMG at recruitment
digitorum communis (EDC). 30.0 26
*p < 0.05 Position task Position task
Conclusions

Normalized EMG (%Max)

Recruitment threshold torque in the first contraction Force task Force task
CV for ISI (%) 27.5 24
Position Task (%MVC)

60 6
• There were no task differences during the first contraction in either
Position Task (%MVC)

4
50 25.0 22 recruitment or discharge characteristics 4.
p = 0.053
2

40 0
0 2 4
Force Task (%MVC)
6
22.5 20 • Mean discharge rate and discharge variability at recruitment both
30 increased during fatiguing contractions, but similarly for the two tasks.
20 20.0 18
First four Last four First four Last four • There was a trend of task differences in the recruitment threshold and
10 p = 0.109
*
discharge rate at recruitment for the high-threshold motor units.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 • Despite the more rapid recruitment of the motor unit pool during the
Servo-controlled torque motor Force Task (%MVC) position task 1, 3, there were no differences in the discharge
Torque profiles during the position and force tasks characteristics of the motor units at recruitment during the two fatiguing
Discharge rate at recruitment in the first contraction
Nominal moment arm contractions.
20 Position Task Force Task
Inertial torque: Rate of torque development at 4.3 ± 3.3 4.3 ± 3.2
Position Task (pps)

Proportional to the angular acceleration and the moment of inertia

15 recruitment (%MVC/s)

Shaft angle relative to the horizontal line Linear fit of torque at recruitment 0.898 ± 0.118 0.902 ± 0.085
References
10
1. Maluf KS, Shinohara M, Stephenson JL, Enoka RM. Muscle activation and time to task failure differ with load type and
Torque during hold phase (%MVC) 21.0 ± 15.6 20.9 ± 15.6 contraction intensity for a human hand muscle. Exp Brain Res 167: 165-77, 2005.
Torque transducer Gravitational torque: 2. Moritz CT, Barry BK, Pascoe MA, Enoka RM. Discharge rate variability influences the variation in force fluctuations
5 across the working range of a hand muscle. J Neurophysiol 93: 2449-59, 2005.
WT Proportional to the nominal mass, and the cosine
of the shaft angle x nominal moment arm Coefficient of variation for torque 3.1 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 1.8* 3. Mottram CJ, Jakobi JM, Semmler JG, Enoka RM. Motor-unit activity differs with load type during a fatiguing contraction.
J Neurophysiol 93:1381-92, 2005.
Nominal mass 0 during hold phase (%) 4. Narazaki K, Barry BK, Justice JN, Enoka RM. The influence of load compliance on motor unit recruitment threshold.
0 5 10 15 20 Soc Neurosc Abstr 652.16, 2006.
Load simulation for the position task Force Task (pps)
*p < 0.05
Funding: NINDS NS43275 awarded to RME