Limits...
Trunk isometric force production parameters during erector spinae muscle vibration at different frequencies.

Boucher JA, Normand MC, Descarreaux M - J Neuroeng Rehabil (2013)

Bottom Line: The control of force and its variability are often considered determinants of motor performance and neuromuscular control.The main finding suggests that erector spinae muscle vibration significantly decreases the accuracy in a trunk extension isometric force reproduction task.The results suggest that acute erector spinae muscle vibration interferes with torque generation sequence of the trunk by distorting proprioceptive information in healthy participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: Vibration is known to alter proprioceptive afferents and create a tonic vibration reflex. The control of force and its variability are often considered determinants of motor performance and neuromuscular control. However, the effect of vibration on paraspinal muscle control and force production remains to be determined.

Methods: Twenty-one healthy adults were asked to perform isometric trunk flexion and extension torque at 60% of their maximal voluntary isometric contraction, under three different vibration conditions: no vibration, vibration frequencies of 30 Hz and 80 Hz. Eighteen isometric contractions were performed under each condition without any feedback. Mechanical vibrations were applied bilaterally over the lumbar erector spinae muscles while participants were in neutral standing position. Time to peak torque (TPT), variable error (VE) as well as constant error (CE) and absolute error (AE) in peak torque were calculated and compared between conditions.

Results: The main finding suggests that erector spinae muscle vibration significantly decreases the accuracy in a trunk extension isometric force reproduction task. There was no difference between both vibration frequencies with regard to force production parameters. Antagonist muscles do not seem to be directly affected by vibration stimulation when performing a trunk isometric task.

Conclusions: The results suggest that acute erector spinae muscle vibration interferes with torque generation sequence of the trunk by distorting proprioceptive information in healthy participants.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Comparison of mean constant errors in trunk extension task for each vibration condition: no vibration, 30 Hz vibration, and 80 Hz vibration (mean ± standard error).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750832&req=5

Figure 5: Comparison of mean constant errors in trunk extension task for each vibration condition: no vibration, 30 Hz vibration, and 80 Hz vibration (mean ± standard error).

Mentions: The average MVC was 113.24 ± 58.11 Nm in trunk flexion and 128.06 ± 72.51 Nm in trunk extension. The statistical analysis yielded a significant difference in CE between the three vibration conditions in trunk extension (F(2,40) = 12.883, P < 0.001). Post-Hoc comparisons revealed significant increase in CE (undershoot) for both 30 Hz and 80 Hz vibration conditions (all P < 0.001) when compared to the no vibration condition. This observation is illustrated in Figure 5. However, 30 Hz and 80 Hz conditions were not different from one another (P = 1.00). The VE (F(2,40) = 0.034, P = 0.967) and AE (F(2,40) = 1.899, P = 0.163) values in trunk extension were not significantly different across conditions. On average, the TPT in trunk extension was 466.65 ± 8.49 ms and did not differ significantly between the three vibration conditions (P > 0.05). Table 2 displays the mean TPT, VE, CE, and AE scores for the three conditions in trunk extension. Statistical analyses for TPT, VE, CE and AE in trunk flexion yielded no significant difference (all P > 0.05). No significant vibration frequencies by directions of exertion interaction effect could be observed for the mean VE (F(2,40) = 0.198, P = 0.821), CE (F(2,40) = 14.556, P = 0.620) and AE scores (F(2,40) = 0.512, P = 0.603).


Trunk isometric force production parameters during erector spinae muscle vibration at different frequencies.

Boucher JA, Normand MC, Descarreaux M - J Neuroeng Rehabil (2013)

Comparison of mean constant errors in trunk extension task for each vibration condition: no vibration, 30 Hz vibration, and 80 Hz vibration (mean ± standard error).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3750832&req=5

Figure 5: Comparison of mean constant errors in trunk extension task for each vibration condition: no vibration, 30 Hz vibration, and 80 Hz vibration (mean ± standard error).
Mentions: The average MVC was 113.24 ± 58.11 Nm in trunk flexion and 128.06 ± 72.51 Nm in trunk extension. The statistical analysis yielded a significant difference in CE between the three vibration conditions in trunk extension (F(2,40) = 12.883, P < 0.001). Post-Hoc comparisons revealed significant increase in CE (undershoot) for both 30 Hz and 80 Hz vibration conditions (all P < 0.001) when compared to the no vibration condition. This observation is illustrated in Figure 5. However, 30 Hz and 80 Hz conditions were not different from one another (P = 1.00). The VE (F(2,40) = 0.034, P = 0.967) and AE (F(2,40) = 1.899, P = 0.163) values in trunk extension were not significantly different across conditions. On average, the TPT in trunk extension was 466.65 ± 8.49 ms and did not differ significantly between the three vibration conditions (P > 0.05). Table 2 displays the mean TPT, VE, CE, and AE scores for the three conditions in trunk extension. Statistical analyses for TPT, VE, CE and AE in trunk flexion yielded no significant difference (all P > 0.05). No significant vibration frequencies by directions of exertion interaction effect could be observed for the mean VE (F(2,40) = 0.198, P = 0.821), CE (F(2,40) = 14.556, P = 0.620) and AE scores (F(2,40) = 0.512, P = 0.603).

Bottom Line: The control of force and its variability are often considered determinants of motor performance and neuromuscular control.The main finding suggests that erector spinae muscle vibration significantly decreases the accuracy in a trunk extension isometric force reproduction task.The results suggest that acute erector spinae muscle vibration interferes with torque generation sequence of the trunk by distorting proprioceptive information in healthy participants.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Background: Vibration is known to alter proprioceptive afferents and create a tonic vibration reflex. The control of force and its variability are often considered determinants of motor performance and neuromuscular control. However, the effect of vibration on paraspinal muscle control and force production remains to be determined.

Methods: Twenty-one healthy adults were asked to perform isometric trunk flexion and extension torque at 60% of their maximal voluntary isometric contraction, under three different vibration conditions: no vibration, vibration frequencies of 30 Hz and 80 Hz. Eighteen isometric contractions were performed under each condition without any feedback. Mechanical vibrations were applied bilaterally over the lumbar erector spinae muscles while participants were in neutral standing position. Time to peak torque (TPT), variable error (VE) as well as constant error (CE) and absolute error (AE) in peak torque were calculated and compared between conditions.

Results: The main finding suggests that erector spinae muscle vibration significantly decreases the accuracy in a trunk extension isometric force reproduction task. There was no difference between both vibration frequencies with regard to force production parameters. Antagonist muscles do not seem to be directly affected by vibration stimulation when performing a trunk isometric task.

Conclusions: The results suggest that acute erector spinae muscle vibration interferes with torque generation sequence of the trunk by distorting proprioceptive information in healthy participants.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus