The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 80 No. 4 October 1998, pp. 1860-1867
Copyright ©1998 The American Physiological Society

Muscle Activation Patterns During Two Types of Voluntary Single-Joint Movement

Gerald L. Gottlieb

Boston University, Neuromuscular Research Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

Gottlieb, Gerald L. Muscle activation patterns during two types of voluntary single-joint movement. J. Neurophysiol. 80: 1860-1867, 1998. We examined the systematic variations in the EMG patterns during two types of single joint elbow movements. These patterns may be interpreted as exhibiting rules by which the CNS controls movement parameters. Normal human subjects performed two series of fast elbow flexion movements of 20-100° in a horizontal plane manipulandum. The first series consisted of pointing movements (PMs) from an initial position to a target; the second series consisted of reversal movements (RMs) to the same targets with an immediate return to the starting position. Both series showed kinematic and electromyographic (EMG) patterns that followed our previously described speed-insensitive strategy for controlling movement distance. Kinematic patterns of PMs and RMs were identical to about the time of peak PM deceleration. Agonist EMG bursts were also initially the same, but RM bursts ended abruptly in a silent period, whereas PM bursts declined more gradually. Antagonist EMG bursts of RMs were later than those of PMs but were not larger, contrary to our prior expectation and despite the larger net extension torque during RMs. The increase in net RM extension-directed torque that takes the limb back to its initial position appears to be a consequence of reduced flexor muscle torque rather than increased extensor muscle torque. We propose that rules for movement control may be similar for different kinds of movements as long as they are functionally sufficient for the task. However, even in a single-joint movement paradigm, physics alone, that is, the knowledge of net muscle torque and limb kinematics, is not adequate to fully predict those rules or the muscle activation patterns they produce. These must be discovered by experiment. The simplest expression of such rules may not be in terms of torque or kinematic variables but rather explicitly in terms of muscle activation patterns.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. A. Scheidt and C. Ghez Separate Adaptive Mechanisms for Controlling Trajectory and Final Position in Reaching J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2007; 98(6): 3600 - 3613. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Irlbacher, M. Voss, B.-U. Meyer, and J. C. Rothwell Influence of ipsilateral transcranial magnetic stimulation on the triphasic EMG pattern accompanying fast ballistic movements in humans J. Physiol., August 1, 2006; 574(3): 917 - 928. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. B. Hart and S. F. Giszter Modular Premotor Drives and Unit Bursts as Primitives for Frog Motor Behaviors J. Neurosci., June 2, 2004; 24(22): 5269 - 5282. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. L. Almeida, D. M. Corcos, and Z. Hasan Horizontal-Plane Arm Movements With Direction Reversals Performed by Normal Individuals and Individuals With Down Syndrome J Neurophysiol, October 1, 2000; 84(4): 1949 - 1960. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. Kargo and S. F. Giszter Rapid Correction of Aimed Movements by Summation of Force-Field Primitives J. Neurosci., January 1, 2000; 20(1): 409 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]