Limits...
Task complexity and maximal isometric strength gains through motor learning.

McGuire J, Green LA, Gabriel DA - Physiol Rep (2014)

Bottom Line: Both groups exhibited comparable increases in strength (20.2%, P < 0.01) and reductions in mean torque variability (26.2%, P < 0.01), which were retained and transferred.There was a decrease in the coactivation ratio (antagonist/agonist muscle activity) for both groups, which was retained and transferred (35.2%, P < 0.01).The control group underwent a decrease in variability of the torque- and sEMG-time curves from the first day of training to retention, but participants returned to baseline levels during the transfer condition (P < 0.01).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Electromyographic Kinesiology Laboratory, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, flexor carpi radialis (FCR) surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity, extensor carpi radialis (ECR) sEMG for the control and experimental groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer). The transfer task was the crossed‐condition for each group: the control group performed the maximal isometric wrist extension‐to‐flexion contraction pattern, while the experimental group completed maximal isometric contractions of the wrist flexors.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4255822&req=5

fig03: Representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, flexor carpi radialis (FCR) surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity, extensor carpi radialis (ECR) sEMG for the control and experimental groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer). The transfer task was the crossed‐condition for each group: the control group performed the maximal isometric wrist extension‐to‐flexion contraction pattern, while the experimental group completed maximal isometric contractions of the wrist flexors.

Mentions: Figure 3 shows representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, FCR sEMG, and ECR sEMG for the control (flexion) and experimental (extension‐to‐flexion) groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer) that illustrates essential components of the statistical findings presented in detail below. Both groups exhibited comparable increases in maximal isometric strength and decreases in variability of motor performance (VRs). The same was true for RMS error, not shown. These alterations were retained over the 2‐week interval. The experimental group was able to transfer increases in maximal strength and decreases in variability in torque and sEMG to the simple contraction pattern during the cross‐condition. The control group had more difficulty during the transfer task (extension‐to‐flexion) in terms of torque and sEMG variability, but maximum isometric strength and reduced RMS error were preserved.


Task complexity and maximal isometric strength gains through motor learning.

McGuire J, Green LA, Gabriel DA - Physiol Rep (2014)

Representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, flexor carpi radialis (FCR) surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity, extensor carpi radialis (ECR) sEMG for the control and experimental groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer). The transfer task was the crossed‐condition for each group: the control group performed the maximal isometric wrist extension‐to‐flexion contraction pattern, while the experimental group completed maximal isometric contractions of the wrist flexors.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4255822&req=5

fig03: Representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, flexor carpi radialis (FCR) surface electromyographic (sEMG) activity, extensor carpi radialis (ECR) sEMG for the control and experimental groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer). The transfer task was the crossed‐condition for each group: the control group performed the maximal isometric wrist extension‐to‐flexion contraction pattern, while the experimental group completed maximal isometric contractions of the wrist flexors.
Mentions: Figure 3 shows representative tracings for maximal isometric wrist flexion torque, FCR sEMG, and ECR sEMG for the control (flexion) and experimental (extension‐to‐flexion) groups for Block 1, Block 4 (retention), and Block 5 (transfer) that illustrates essential components of the statistical findings presented in detail below. Both groups exhibited comparable increases in maximal isometric strength and decreases in variability of motor performance (VRs). The same was true for RMS error, not shown. These alterations were retained over the 2‐week interval. The experimental group was able to transfer increases in maximal strength and decreases in variability in torque and sEMG to the simple contraction pattern during the cross‐condition. The control group had more difficulty during the transfer task (extension‐to‐flexion) in terms of torque and sEMG variability, but maximum isometric strength and reduced RMS error were preserved.

Bottom Line: Both groups exhibited comparable increases in strength (20.2%, P < 0.01) and reductions in mean torque variability (26.2%, P < 0.01), which were retained and transferred.There was a decrease in the coactivation ratio (antagonist/agonist muscle activity) for both groups, which was retained and transferred (35.2%, P < 0.01).The control group underwent a decrease in variability of the torque- and sEMG-time curves from the first day of training to retention, but participants returned to baseline levels during the transfer condition (P < 0.01).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Electromyographic Kinesiology Laboratory, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus