JN Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Neurophysiol (January 9, 2008). doi:10.1152/jn.01252.2007
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
99/3/1096    most recent
01252.2007v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Klass, M.
Right arrow Articles by Duchateau, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Klass, M.
Right arrow Articles by Duchateau, J.
Submitted on November 13, 2007
Accepted on January 5, 2008

Spinal Mechanisms Contribute to Differences in the Time to Failure of Submaximal Fatiguing Contractions Performed with Different Loads

Malgorzata Klass1, Morgan Levenez1, Roger M. Enoka2, and Jacques Duchateau1*

1 Laboratory of Applied Biology, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
2 Department of Integrative Physiology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jduchat{at}ulb.ac.be.

This study compared the mechanisms that limit the time to failure of a sustained submaximal contraction at 20% of maximum when the elbow flexors either supported an inertial load (position task) or exerted an equivalent constant torque against a rigid restraint (force task). The surface electromyogram (EMG), the motor evoked potential (MEP) in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex, and the Hoffmann reflex (H-reflex) and maximal M-wave (Mmax) elicited by electrical stimulation of the brachial plexus were recorded in biceps brachii during the two tasks. Although the time to failure for the position task was only 44% of that for the force task, the rate of increase of the average EMG (aEMG; % initial MVC) and MEP area (% Mmax) did not differ significantly during the two tasks. At task failure, however, the increase in normalized aEMG and MEP area were significantly (P < 0.05) greater for the force task (36.4 and 219.9%) than for the position task (22.4 and 141.7%). Furthermore, the superimposed mechanical twitch (% initial MVC), evoked by TMS during a brief MVC of the elbow flexors immediately after task failure, was increased similarly in both tasks. Although the normalized H-reflex area (% Mmax) decreased during the two fatiguing contractions, the reduction was more rapid and greater during the position task (59.8%) compared with the force task (34.7%). Taken together, the results suggest that spinal mechanisms were a major determinant of the briefer time to failure for the position task.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Appl. Physiol.Home page
S. K. Hunter, T. Yoon, J. Farinella, E. E. Griffith, and A. V. Ng
Time to task failure and muscle activation vary with load type for a submaximal fatiguing contraction with the lower leg
J Appl Physiol, August 1, 2008; 105(2): 463 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the The American Physiological Society.