Factors influencing quadriceps femoris muscle torque using transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation
- PMID: 1946610
- DOI: 10.1093/ptj/71.10.715
Factors influencing quadriceps femoris muscle torque using transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation
Abstract
Quadriceps femoris muscle torque was measured in 40 subjects during transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES). Three different electrode types (carbonized rubber, sponge, and adhesive) were used on each subject, permitting determination of the factors that influenced the magnitude of quadriceps femoris muscle torque induced by NMES. This goal was accomplished by entering the various factors into a multiple-regression model. The electrodes differed significantly in their characteristics. The carbonized-rubber electrode delivered the greatest current with the lowest impedance, resulting in the highest knee extension torque. We found that the most important factor in determining torque generation level was the quadriceps femoris muscle's intrinsic ability to be activated (as opposed to electrode size, current, current density, or skin impedance). These data suggest that NMES efficacy is primarily determined by the intrinsic tissue properties of the individual (defined in this study as "efficiency") and is not dramatically changeable by using high stimulation currents or large electrode sizes. The precise physiological basis for interindividual differences in efficiency is not known.
Similar articles
-
Contribution of Each Motor Point of Quadriceps Femoris to Knee Extension Torque During Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation.IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021;29:389-396. doi: 10.1109/TNSRE.2021.3052853. Epub 2021 Mar 2. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng. 2021. PMID: 33465028
-
Electrode effectiveness during transcutaneous motor stimulation.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980 Feb;61(2):73-7. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980. PMID: 7369842
-
Differences in quadriceps femoris muscle torque when using a clinical electrical stimulator versus a portable electrical stimulator.Phys Ther. 2005 Jan;85(1):44-51. Phys Ther. 2005. PMID: 15623361
-
Neuromuscular electrical stimulation. An overview and its application in the treatment of sports injuries.Sports Med. 1992 May;13(5):320-36. doi: 10.2165/00007256-199213050-00003. Sports Med. 1992. PMID: 1565927 Review.
-
Can the Use of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Be Improved to Optimize Quadriceps Strengthening?Sports Health. 2016 Jan-Feb;8(1):79-85. doi: 10.1177/1941738115618174. Sports Health. 2016. PMID: 26582349 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Caution is required when comparing the effectiveness of voluntary versus stimulated versus combined strength training modalities.Sports Med. 2008;38(5):437-8; author reply 438-40. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838050-00006. Sports Med. 2008. PMID: 18416596 No abstract available.
-
Is high-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation a suitable tool for muscle performance improvement in both healthy humans and athletes?Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Oct;111(10):2473-87. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2101-2. Epub 2011 Sep 10. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011. PMID: 21909714 Review.
-
Muscle motor point identification is essential for optimizing neuromuscular electrical stimulation use.J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 Feb 25;11:17. doi: 10.1186/1743-0003-11-17. J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014. PMID: 24568180 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison in muscle damage between maximal voluntary and electrically evoked isometric contractions of the elbow flexors.Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012 Feb;112(2):429-38. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-1991-3. Epub 2011 May 15. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2012. PMID: 21573775
-
The Effect of Quadriceps Muscle Length on Maximum Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Evoked Contraction, Muscle Architecture, and Tendon-Aponeurosis Stiffness.Front Physiol. 2021 Mar 29;12:633589. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.633589. eCollection 2021. Front Physiol. 2021. PMID: 33854439 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources