Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (16) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (9)
- Postprint (6)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (16)
Keywords
Institute
The mechanical muscular oscillations are rarely the objective of investigations regarding the identification of a biomarker for Parkinson’s disease (PD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether or not this specific motor output differs between PD patients and controls. The novelty is that patients without tremor are investigated performing a unilateral isometric motor task. The force of armflexors and the forearm acceleration (ACC) were recorded as well as the mechanomyography of the biceps brachii (MMGbi), brachioradialis (MMGbra) and pectoralis major (MMGpect) muscles using a piezoelectric-sensor-based system during a unilateral motor task at 70% of the MVIC. The frequency, a power-frequency-ratio, the amplitude variation, the slope of amplitudes and their interlimb asymmetries were analysed. The results indicate that the oscillatory behavior of muscular output in PD without tremor deviates from controls in some parameters: Significant differences appeared for the power-frequency-ratio (p = 0.001, r = 0.43) and for the amplitude variation (p = 0.003, r = 0.34) of MMGpect. The interlimb asymmetries differed significantly concerning the power-frequency-ratio of MMGbi (p = 0.013, r = 0.42) and MMGbra (p = 0.048, r = 0.39) as well as regarding the mean frequency (p = 0.004, r = 0.48) and amplitude variation of MMGpect (p = 0.033, r = 0.37). The mean (M) and variation coefficient (CV) of slope of ACC differed significantly (M: p = 0.022, r = 0.33; CV: p = 0.004, r = 0.43). All other parameters showed no significant differences between PD and controls. It remains open, if this altered mechanical muscular output is reproducible and specific for PD.
The mechanical muscular oscillations are rarely the objective of investigations regarding the identification of a biomarker for Parkinson’s disease (PD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether or not this specific motor output differs between PD patients and controls. The novelty is that patients without tremor are investigated performing a unilateral isometric motor task. The force of armflexors and the forearm acceleration (ACC) were recorded as well as the mechanomyography of the biceps brachii (MMGbi), brachioradialis (MMGbra) and pectoralis major (MMGpect) muscles using a piezoelectric-sensor-based system during a unilateral motor task at 70% of the MVIC. The frequency, a power-frequency-ratio, the amplitude variation, the slope of amplitudes and their interlimb asymmetries were analysed. The results indicate that the oscillatory behavior of muscular output in PD without tremor deviates from controls in some parameters: Significant differences appeared for the power-frequency-ratio (p = 0.001, r = 0.43) and for the amplitude variation (p = 0.003, r = 0.34) of MMGpect. The interlimb asymmetries differed significantly concerning the power-frequency-ratio of MMGbi (p = 0.013, r = 0.42) and MMGbra (p = 0.048, r = 0.39) as well as regarding the mean frequency (p = 0.004, r = 0.48) and amplitude variation of MMGpect (p = 0.033, r = 0.37). The mean (M) and variation coefficient (CV) of slope of ACC differed significantly (M: p = 0.022, r = 0.33; CV: p = 0.004, r = 0.43). All other parameters showed no significant differences between PD and controls. It remains open, if this altered mechanical muscular output is reproducible and specific for PD.
In sports and movement sciences isometric muscle function is usually measured by pushing against a stable resistance. However, subjectively one can hold or push isometrically. Several investigations suggest a distinction of those forms. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these two forms of isometric muscle action can be distinguished by objective parameters in an interpersonal setting. 20 subjects were grouped in 10 same sex pairs, in which one partner should perform the pushing isometric muscle action (PIMA) and the other partner executed the holding isometric muscle action (HIMA). The partners had contact at the distal forearms via an interface, which included a strain gauge and an acceleration sensor. The mechanical oscillations of the triceps brachii (MMGtri) muscle, its tendon (MTGtri) and the abdominal muscle (MMGobl) were recorded by a piezoelectric-sensor-based measurement system. Each partner performed three 15s (80% MVIC) and two fatiguing trials (90% MVIC) during PIMA and HIMA, respectively. Parameters to compare PIMA and HIMA were the mean frequency, the normalized mean amplitude, the amplitude variation, the power in the frequency range of 8 to 15 Hz, a special power-frequency ratio and the number of task failures during HIMA or PIMA (partner who quit the task). A “HIMA failure” occurred in 85% of trials (p < 0.001). No significant differences between PIMA and HIMA were found for the mean frequency and normalized amplitude. The MMGobl showed significantly higher values of amplitude variation (15s: p = 0.013; fatiguing: p = 0.007) and of power-frequency-ratio (15s: p = 0.040; fatiguing: p = 0.002) during HIMA and a higher power in the range of 8 to 15 Hz during PIMA (15s: p = 0.001; fatiguing: p = 0.011). MMGtri and MTGtri showed no significant differences. Based on the findings it is suggested that a holding and a pushing isometric muscle action can be distinguished objectively, whereby a more complex neural control is assumed for HIMA.
In sports and movement sciences isometric muscle function is usually measured by pushing against a stable resistance. However, subjectively one can hold or push isometrically. Several investigations suggest a distinction of those forms. The aim of this study was to investigate whether these two forms of isometric muscle action can be distinguished by objective parameters in an interpersonal setting. 20 subjects were grouped in 10 same sex pairs, in which one partner should perform the pushing isometric muscle action (PIMA) and the other partner executed the holding isometric muscle action (HIMA). The partners had contact at the distal forearms via an interface, which included a strain gauge and an acceleration sensor. The mechanical oscillations of the triceps brachii (MMGtri) muscle, its tendon (MTGtri) and the abdominal muscle (MMGobl) were recorded by a piezoelectric-sensor-based measurement system. Each partner performed three 15s (80% MVIC) and two fatiguing trials (90% MVIC) during PIMA and HIMA, respectively. Parameters to compare PIMA and HIMA were the mean frequency, the normalized mean amplitude, the amplitude variation, the power in the frequency range of 8 to 15 Hz, a special power-frequency ratio and the number of task failures during HIMA or PIMA (partner who quit the task). A “HIMA failure” occurred in 85% of trials (p < 0.001). No significant differences between PIMA and HIMA were found for the mean frequency and normalized amplitude. The MMGobl showed significantly higher values of amplitude variation (15s: p = 0.013; fatiguing: p = 0.007) and of power-frequency-ratio (15s: p = 0.040; fatiguing: p = 0.002) during HIMA and a higher power in the range of 8 to 15 Hz during PIMA (15s: p = 0.001; fatiguing: p = 0.011). MMGtri and MTGtri showed no significant differences. Based on the findings it is suggested that a holding and a pushing isometric muscle action can be distinguished objectively, whereby a more complex neural control is assumed for HIMA.
Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the capability of the neuromuscular system to adapt adequately to external forces with the intention of maintaining a position or motion. One specific approach to assessing AF is to measure force and limb position during a pneumatically applied increasing external force. Through this method, the highest (AFmax), the maximal isometric (AFisomax) and the maximal eccentric Adaptive Force (AFeccmax) can be determined. The main question of the study was whether the AFisomax is a specific and independent parameter of muscle function compared to other maximal forces. In 13 healthy subjects (9 male and 4 female), the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (pre- and post-MVIC), the three AF parameters and the MVIC with a prior concentric contraction (MVICpri-con) of the elbow extensors were measured 4 times on two days. Arithmetic mean (M) and maximal (Max) torques of all force types were analyzed. Regarding the reliability of the AF parameters between days, the mean changes were 0.31–1.98 Nm (0.61%–5.47%, p = 0.175–0.552), the standard errors of measurements (SEM) were 1.29–5.68 Nm (2.53%–15.70%) and the ICCs(3,1) = 0.896–0.996. M and Max of AFisomax, AFmax and pre-MVIC correlated highly (r = 0.85–0.98). The M and Max of AFisomax were significantly lower (6.12–14.93 Nm; p ≤ 0.001–0.009) and more variable between trials (coefficient of variation (CVs) ≥ 21.95%) compared to those of pre-MVIC and AFmax (CVs ≤ 5.4%). The results suggest the novel measuring procedure is suitable to reliably quantify the AF, whereby the presented measurement errors should be taken into consideration. The AFisomax seems to reflect its own strength capacity and should be detected separately. It is suggested its normalization to the MVIC or AFmax could serve as an indicator of a neuromuscular function.
Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the capability of the neuromuscular system to adapt adequately to external forces with the intention of maintaining a position or motion. One specific approach to assessing AF is to measure force and limb position during a pneumatically applied increasing external force. Through this method, the highest (AFmax), the maximal isometric (AFisomax) and the maximal eccentric Adaptive Force (AFeccmax) can be determined. The main question of the study was whether the AFisomax is a specific and independent parameter of muscle function compared to other maximal forces. In 13 healthy subjects (9 male and 4 female), the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (pre- and post-MVIC), the three AF parameters and the MVIC with a prior concentric contraction (MVICpri-con) of the elbow extensors were measured 4 times on two days. Arithmetic mean (M) and maximal (Max) torques of all force types were analyzed. Regarding the reliability of the AF parameters between days, the mean changes were 0.31–1.98 Nm (0.61%–5.47%, p = 0.175–0.552), the standard errors of measurements (SEM) were 1.29–5.68 Nm (2.53%–15.70%) and the ICCs(3,1) = 0.896–0.996. M and Max of AFisomax, AFmax and pre-MVIC correlated highly (r = 0.85–0.98). The M and Max of AFisomax were significantly lower (6.12–14.93 Nm; p ≤ 0.001–0.009) and more variable between trials (coefficient of variation (CVs) ≥ 21.95%) compared to those of pre-MVIC and AFmax (CVs ≤ 5.4%). The results suggest the novel measuring procedure is suitable to reliably quantify the AF, whereby the presented measurement errors should be taken into consideration. The AFisomax seems to reflect its own strength capacity and should be detected separately. It is suggested its normalization to the MVIC or AFmax could serve as an indicator of a neuromuscular function.