Muscle activation assessment: Effects of method, stimulus number, and joint angle

Authors

  • Theodoros M. Bampouras MSc,

    Corresponding author
    1. Institute for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom
    2. Sport and Exercise Research Group, Edge Hill University, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire L39 4QP, United Kingdom
    • Institute for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Neil D. Reeves PhD,

    1. Institute for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Vasilios Baltzopoulos PhD,

    1. Institute for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Constantinos N. Maganaris PhD

    1. Institute for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University, Alsager, United Kingdom
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Activation capacity has traditionally been assessed using the interpolated twitch technique (ITT) and central activation ratio (CAR). However, the quantitative agreement of the two methods and the physiological mechanisms underpinning any possible differences have not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to compare and assess the sensitivity of the ITT and CAR to potential errors introduced by (1) evoking inadequate force, by manipulating the number of stimuli, and (2) neglecting differences in series elasticity between conditions, by manipulating joint angle. Ten subjects performed knee extension contractions at 30° and 90° knee-joint angles during which the ITT and CAR methods were applied using 1, 2, 4, and 8 electrical stimuli. Joint angle influenced the ITT outcome with higher values taken at 90° (P < 0.05), while the number of stimuli influenced the CAR outcome with a higher number of stimuli yielding lower values (P < 0.05). For any given joint angle and stimulus number, the CAR method produced higher activation values than the ITT method by 8%–16%. Therefore, in the quantification of voluntary drive with the ITT and CAR methods consideration should be given not only to the number of stimuli applied but also to the effect of series elasticity due to joint-angle differences, since these factors may differently affect the outcome of the calculation, depending on the approach followed. Muscle Nerve, 2006

Ancillary