4.6 Article

Detection of the electromechanical delay and its components during voluntary isometric contraction of the quadriceps femoris muscle

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00494

关键词

electromechanical delay; excitation-contraction coupling; series elastic components; contractile components; rectus femoris muscle; transient ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Electromechanical delay (EMD) was described as a time elapsed between first trigger and force output. Various results have been reported based on the measurement method with observed inconsistent results when the trigger is elicited by voluntary contraction. However, mechanomyographic (MMG) sensor placed far away on the skin from the contracting muscle was used to detect muscle fiber motion and excitation-contraction (EC) coupling which may give unreliable results. On this basis, the purpose of this study was to detect EMD during active muscle contraction whilst introducing an ultrafast ultrasound (US) method to detect muscle fiber motion from a certain depth of the muscle. Time delays between onsets of EMG-MMG, EMG-US, MMG-FORCE, US-FORCE, and EMG-FORCE were calculated as 20.5 +/- 4.73, 28.63 +/- 6.31, 19.21 +/- 6.79, 30.52 +/- 8.85, and 49.73 +/- 6.99 ms, respectively. Intrarater correlation coefficient (ICC) was higher than MMG when ultrafast US was used for detecton of the At EMG-US and Delta t US-FORCE, ICC values of 0.75 and 0.70, respectively. Synchronization of the ultrafast ultrasound with EMG and FORCE sensors can reveal reliable and clinically useful results related to the EMD and its components when muscle is voluntarily contracted. With ultrafast US, we detect onset from the certain depth of the muscle excluding the tissues above the muscle acting as a low-pass filter which can lead to inaccurate time detection about the onset of the contracting muscle fibers. With this non-invasive technique, understanding of the muscle dynamics can be facilitated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据