Frequency Matters: The Influence of Stimulation Frequency on Force Loss for Human Females and Males.

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 SPORT SCIENCES
Alexander D Paish, Neil D Eves, Chris J McNeil
{"title":"Frequency Matters: The Influence of Stimulation Frequency on Force Loss for Human Females and Males.","authors":"Alexander D Paish, Neil D Eves, Chris J McNeil","doi":"10.1249/MSS.0000000000003724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Most studies applying repeated neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) to assess intrinsic contractile properties employ frequencies considerably greater than the mean motor unit discharge rate (MUDR) for a given force level. It is hypothesized that force loss increases with stimulation frequency, but this has not been evaluated in the same pool of participants when other parameters are unchanged. Furthermore, there is a paucity of research investigating possible sex-based differences for force loss during an NMES protocol, with the presence or absence of a group difference seemingly dependent on stimulation frequency. To address these limitations, we compared force loss of electrically-evoked contractions at (10 Hz), slightly above (15 Hz), and well above (30 Hz) the expected mean MUDR of the quadriceps at 25% maximal voluntary force.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>On three separate occasions, 24 participants (12 females) received 3 minutes of intermittent NMES (10, 15 or 30 Hz) over the quadriceps of the dominant leg.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Force impairment increased with NMES frequency (19.8 ± 14.5%, 42.6 ± 8.1%, and 52.9 ± 4.7% for 10, 15, and 30 Hz, respectively), with no significant differences between sexes. Relative to the start of each task, the rates of force development (RFD) and relaxation (RFR) slowed markedly during the 10, 15, 30 Hz fatiguing protocols (RFD: 42.1 ± 13.5, 61.6 ± 13.2, and 75.9 ± 9.8%; RFR: 38.0 ± 13.9, 64.2 ± 9.1, and 80.4 ± 5.0%, respectively). RFD impairment was less at 10 compared to 15 and 30 Hz, whereas the slowing of RFR increased with NMES frequency. Post-hoc analysis revealed no sex-based differences at any time point for RFD or RFR.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings underscore the impact of stimulus frequency on muscle fatigability and highlight a lack of sex-based differences for electrically-evoked force loss, emphasizing the need for appropriate frequency selection in NMES protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":18426,"journal":{"name":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000003724","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SPORT SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Most studies applying repeated neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) to assess intrinsic contractile properties employ frequencies considerably greater than the mean motor unit discharge rate (MUDR) for a given force level. It is hypothesized that force loss increases with stimulation frequency, but this has not been evaluated in the same pool of participants when other parameters are unchanged. Furthermore, there is a paucity of research investigating possible sex-based differences for force loss during an NMES protocol, with the presence or absence of a group difference seemingly dependent on stimulation frequency. To address these limitations, we compared force loss of electrically-evoked contractions at (10 Hz), slightly above (15 Hz), and well above (30 Hz) the expected mean MUDR of the quadriceps at 25% maximal voluntary force.

Methods: On three separate occasions, 24 participants (12 females) received 3 minutes of intermittent NMES (10, 15 or 30 Hz) over the quadriceps of the dominant leg.

Results: Force impairment increased with NMES frequency (19.8 ± 14.5%, 42.6 ± 8.1%, and 52.9 ± 4.7% for 10, 15, and 30 Hz, respectively), with no significant differences between sexes. Relative to the start of each task, the rates of force development (RFD) and relaxation (RFR) slowed markedly during the 10, 15, 30 Hz fatiguing protocols (RFD: 42.1 ± 13.5, 61.6 ± 13.2, and 75.9 ± 9.8%; RFR: 38.0 ± 13.9, 64.2 ± 9.1, and 80.4 ± 5.0%, respectively). RFD impairment was less at 10 compared to 15 and 30 Hz, whereas the slowing of RFR increased with NMES frequency. Post-hoc analysis revealed no sex-based differences at any time point for RFD or RFR.

Conclusions: These findings underscore the impact of stimulus frequency on muscle fatigability and highlight a lack of sex-based differences for electrically-evoked force loss, emphasizing the need for appropriate frequency selection in NMES protocols.

目的:大多数应用重复神经肌肉电刺激(NMES)评估内在收缩特性的研究采用的频率大大高于给定力量水平下的平均运动单位放电率(MUDR)。据推测,力量损失会随着刺激频率的增加而增加,但在其他参数不变的情况下,尚未在同一批参与者中对此进行评估。此外,很少有研究调查在 NMES 方案中力量损失可能存在的性别差异,而是否存在群体差异似乎取决于刺激频率。为了解决这些局限性,我们比较了在最大自主力量为 25% 时,股四头肌在 10 赫兹、略高于 15 赫兹和远高于 30 赫兹的预期平均 MUDR 下电诱发收缩的力量损失:24 名参与者(12 名女性)在三个不同的场合接受了 3 分钟的间歇性 NMES(10、15 或 30 赫兹)治疗,治疗部位为优势腿的股四头肌:力量损伤随 NMES 频率的增加而增加(10、15 和 30 Hz 频率分别为 19.8 ± 14.5%、42.6 ± 8.1% 和 52.9 ± 4.7%),性别间无显著差异。与每项任务开始时相比,在 10、15 和 30 Hz 的疲劳方案中,力量发展(RFD)和放松(RFR)的速度明显减慢(RFD:分别为 42.1 ± 13.5、61.6 ± 13.2 和 75.9 ± 9.8%;RFR:分别为 38.0 ± 13.9、64.2 ± 9.1 和 80.4 ± 5.0%)。与 15 和 30 Hz 频率相比,10 Hz 频率对射频分配的影响较小,而 RFR 的减慢则随 NMES 频率的增加而增加。事后分析显示,在任何时间点,RFD 或 RFR 均无性别差异:这些发现强调了刺激频率对肌肉易疲劳性的影响,并突出表明电诱发力损失缺乏性别差异,从而强调了在 NMES 方案中选择适当频率的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
4.90%
发文量
2568
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise® features original investigations, clinical studies, and comprehensive reviews on current topics in sports medicine and exercise science. With this leading multidisciplinary journal, exercise physiologists, physiatrists, physical therapists, team physicians, and athletic trainers get a vital exchange of information from basic and applied science, medicine, education, and allied health fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信