Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (27)
- Postprint (19)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Habilitation Thesis (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (48)
Keywords
- Adaptive Force (13)
- isometric muscle action (9)
- maximal isometric Adaptive Force (8)
- holding capacity (6)
- motor control (6)
- neuromuscular control (6)
- Holding isometric muscle action (5)
- Mechanotendography (5)
- O2C spectrophotometer (5)
- Pushing isometric muscle action (5)
- hemoglobin amount (5)
- adaptive force (4)
- holding isometric muscle action (HIMA) (4)
- mechanical tendinous oscillations (4)
- time (4)
- Mechanomyography (3)
- Two forms of isometric muscle action (3)
- blood flow (3)
- capillary recruitment (3)
- muscle action (3)
- muscle oxygen saturation (3)
- muscle weakness (3)
- pulling isometric muscle action (PIMA) (3)
- synchronization (3)
- Isometric contraction (2)
- Isometric muscle action (2)
- Microvascular blood filling (2)
- Muscle twitch (2)
- Oxygen saturation (2)
- Pulling isometric muscle action (2)
- Time to task failure (2)
- activation (2)
- adaptation to external force impact (2)
- adaptive holding capacity (2)
- biomechanical parameter (2)
- contractions (2)
- eccentric muscle action (2)
- electroencephalography (EEG) (2)
- emotional imagery (2)
- emotions (2)
- force (2)
- force profiles (2)
- hand (2)
- handheld device (2)
- holding (HIMA) and pushing (PIMA) isometric muscle action (2)
- holding capability (2)
- humans (2)
- impact on pre-activated Achilles tendon (2)
- injury mechanisms (2)
- inter-brain synchronization (2)
- inter-muscle-brain synchronization (2)
- interpersonal muscle action (2)
- isometric eccentric force (2)
- lengthening contractions (2)
- load (2)
- magnetoencephalography (2)
- manual muscle test (2)
- manual muscle testing (2)
- maximal voluntary contraction (2)
- mechanomyography (MMG) (2)
- mechanotendography (2)
- motor unit synchronization (2)
- muscle (2)
- muscle function (2)
- muscle oxygenation (2)
- muscle physiology (2)
- muscle spindle (2)
- muscle stability (2)
- muscular activity (2)
- neural-control (2)
- neuromuscular adaptation (2)
- neuromuscular diagnostics (2)
- neuromuscular functionality (2)
- neuromuscular functioning (2)
- neuromuscular pre-activation (2)
- oscillations (2)
- piezo-based measurement system (2)
- pleasant and unpleasant imagery (2)
- post COVID syndrome (2)
- power (2)
- power improvement (2)
- principles (2)
- pushing isometric muscle action (PIMA) (2)
- regulatory physiology (2)
- reliability (2)
- repeated adaptive isometric–eccentric muscle action (2)
- reproducibility (2)
- sensorimotor control (2)
- strength measurement system (2)
- strength vs. endurance athletes (2)
- systems (2)
- task (2)
- task failure (2)
- tendons (2)
- validity (2)
- variability (2)
- wavelet coherence (2)
- Diseases (1)
- Emotions (1)
- Functional weakness (1)
- Holding (1)
- Holding capacity (1)
- Imaginations (1)
- Interaktion (1)
- Isometric Adaptive Force (1)
- Isometrie (1)
- Long COVID (1)
- Manual muscle test (1)
- Mechanomyografie (1)
- Motor control (1)
- Neurology (1)
- Neuroscience (1)
- Synchronisation (1)
- case report (1)
- fatigue (1)
- holding (1)
- individualized pulsed electromagnetic field (1)
- interaction (1)
- isometric muscle action (HIMA) (1)
- isometric-eccentric force (1)
- long COVID (1)
- long COVID fatigue (1)
- mechanomyography (1)
- muscle instability (1)
- muscular holding capacity (1)
- myofascial oscillations (1)
- myofasziale Oszillationen (1)
- pneumatic force measuring system (1)
- post-COVID syndrome (1)
Long COVID patients show symptoms, such as fatigue, muscle weakness and pain. Adequate diagnostics are still lacking. Investigating muscle function might be a beneficial approach. The holding capacity (maximal isometric Adaptive Force; AFisomax) was previously suggested to be especially sensitive for impairments. This longitudinal, non-clinical study aimed to investigate the AF in long COVID patients and their recovery process. AF parameters of elbow and hip flexors were assessed in 17 patients at three time points (pre: long COVID state, post: immediately after first treatment, end: recovery) by an objectified manual muscle test. The tester applied an increasing force on the limb of the patient, who had to resist isometrically for as long as possible. The intensity of 13 common symptoms were queried. At pre, patients started to lengthen their muscles at ~50% of the maximal AF (AFmax), which was then reached during eccentric motion, indicating unstable adaptation. At post and end, AFisomax increased significantly to ~99% and 100% of AFmax, respectively, reflecting stable adaptation. AFmax was statistically similar for all three time points. Symptom intensity decreased significantly from pre to end. The findings revealed a substantially impaired maximal holding capacity in long COVID patients, which returned to normal function with substantial health improvement. AFisomax might be a suitable sensitive functional parameter to assess long COVID patients and to support therapy process
Long COVID patients show symptoms, such as fatigue, muscle weakness and pain. Adequate diagnostics are still lacking. Investigating muscle function might be a beneficial approach. The holding capacity (maximal isometric Adaptive Force; AFisomax) was previously suggested to be especially sensitive for impairments. This longitudinal, non-clinical study aimed to investigate the AF in long COVID patients and their recovery process. AF parameters of elbow and hip flexors were assessed in 17 patients at three time points (pre: long COVID state, post: immediately after first treatment, end: recovery) by an objectified manual muscle test. The tester applied an increasing force on the limb of the patient, who had to resist isometrically for as long as possible. The intensity of 13 common symptoms were queried. At pre, patients started to lengthen their muscles at ~50% of the maximal AF (AFmax), which was then reached during eccentric motion, indicating unstable adaptation. At post and end, AFisomax increased significantly to ~99% and 100% of AFmax, respectively, reflecting stable adaptation. AFmax was statistically similar for all three time points. Symptom intensity decreased significantly from pre to end. The findings revealed a substantially impaired maximal holding capacity in long COVID patients, which returned to normal function with substantial health improvement. AFisomax might be a suitable sensitive functional parameter to assess long COVID patients and to support therapy process
Synchronisationsphänomene myotendinöser Oszillationen interagierender neuromuskulärer Systeme
(2014)
Muskeln oszillieren nachgewiesener Weise mit einer Frequenz um 10 Hz. Doch was geschieht mit myofaszialen Oszillationen, wenn zwei neuromuskuläre Systeme interagieren? Die Dissertation widmet sich dieser Fragestellung bei isometrischer Interaktion. Während der Testmessungen ergaben sich Hinweise für das Vorhandensein von möglicherweise zwei verschiedenen Formen der Isometrie. Arbeiten zwei Personen isometrisch gegeneinander, können subjektiv zwei Modi eingenommen werden: man kann entweder isometrisch halten – der Kraft des Partners widerstehen – oder isometrisch drücken – gegen den isometrischen Widerstand des Partners arbeiten. Daher wurde zusätzlich zu den Messungen zur Interaktion zweier Personen an einzelnen Individuen geprüft, ob möglicherweise zwei Formen der Isometrie existieren. Die Promotion besteht demnach aus zwei inhaltlich und methodisch getrennten Teilen: I „Single-Isometrie“ und II „Paar-Isometrie“. Für Teil I wurden mithilfe eines pneumatisch betriebenen Systems die hypothetischen Messmodi Halten und Drücken während isometrischer Aktion untersucht. Bei n = 10 Probanden erfolgte parallel zur Aufzeichnung des Drucksignals während der Messungen die Erfassung der Kraft (DMS) und der Beschleunigung sowie die Aufnahme der mechanischen Muskeloszillationen folgender myotendinöser Strukturen via Mechanomyo- (MMG) bzw. Mechanotendografie (MTG): M. triceps brachii (MMGtri), Trizepssehne (MTGtri), M. obliquus externus abdominis (MMGobl). Pro Proband wurden bei 80 % der MVC sowohl sechs 15-Sekunden-Messungen (jeweils drei im haltenden bzw. drückenden Modus; Pause: 1 Minute) als auch vier Ermüdungsmessungen (jeweils zwei im haltenden bzw. drückenden Modus; Pause: 2 Minuten) durchgeführt. Zum Vergleich der Messmodi Halten und Drücken wurden die Amplituden der myofaszialen Oszillationen sowie die Kraftausdauer herangezogen. Signifikante Unterschiede zwischen dem haltenden und dem drückenden Modus zeigten sich insbesondere im Bereich der Ermüdungscharakteristik. So lassen Probanden im haltenden Modus signifikant früher nach als im drückenden Modus (t(9) = 3,716; p = .005). Im drückenden Modus macht das längste isometrische Plateau durchschnittlich 59,4 % der Gesamtdauer aus, im haltenden sind es 31,6 % (t(19) = 5,265, p = .000). Die Amplituden der Single-Isometrie-Messungen unterscheiden sich nicht signifikant. Allerdings variieren die Amplituden des MMGobl zwischen den Messungen im drückenden Modus signifikant stärker als im haltenden Modus. Aufgrund dieser teils signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Messmodi wurde dieses Setting auch im zweiten Teil „Paar-Isometrie“ berücksichtigt. Dort wurden n = 20 Probanden – eingeteilt in zehn gleichgeschlechtliche Paare – während isometrischer Interaktion untersucht. Die Sensorplatzierung erfolgte analog zu Teil I. Die Oszillationen der erfassten MTG- sowie MMG-Signale wurden u.a. mit Algorithmen der Nichtlinearen Dynamik auf ihre Kohärenz hin untersucht. Durch die Paar-Isometrie-Messungen zeigte sich, dass die Muskeln und die Sehnen beider neuromuskulärer Systeme bei Interaktion im bekannten Frequenzbereich von 10 Hz oszillieren. Außerdem waren sie in der Lage, sich bei Interaktion so aufeinander abzustimmen, dass sich eine signifikante Kohärenz entwickelte, die sich von Zufallspaarungen signifikant unterscheidet (Patchanzahl: t(29) = 3,477; p = .002; Summe der 4 längsten Patches: t(29) = 7,505; p = .000). Es wird der Schluss gezogen, dass neuromuskuläre Komplementärpartner in der Lage sind, sich im Sinne kohärenten Verhaltens zu synchronisieren. Bezüglich der Parameter zur Untersuchung der möglicherweise vorhandenen zwei Formen der Isometrie zeigte sich bei den Paar-Isometrie-Messungen zwischen Halten und Drücken ein signifikanter Unterschied bei der Ermüdungscharakteristik sowie bezüglich der Amplitude der MMGobl. Die Ergebnisse beider Teilstudien bestärken die Hypothese, dass zwei Formen der Isometrie existieren. Fraglich ist, ob man überhaupt von Isometrie sprechen kann, da jede isometrische Muskelaktion aus feinen Oszillationen besteht, die eine per Definition postulierte Isometrie ausschließen. Es wird der Vorschlag unterbreitet, die Isometrie durch den Begriff der Homöometrie auszutauschen. Die Ergebnisse der Paar-Isometrie-Messungen zeigen u.a., dass neuromuskuläre Systeme in der Lage sind, ihre myotendinösen Oszillationen so aufeinander abzustimmen, dass kohärentes Verhalten entsteht. Es wird angenommen, dass hierzu beide neuromuskulären Systeme funktionell intakt sein müssen. Das Verfahren könnte für die Diagnostik funktioneller Störungen relevant werden.
The Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the neuromuscular capacity to adapt to external loads during holding muscle actions and is similar to motions in real life and sports. The maximal isometric AF (AFisomax) was considered to be the most relevant parameter and was assumed to have major importance regarding injury mechanisms and the development of musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the behavior of different torque parameters over the course of 30 repeated maximal AF trials. In addition, maximal holding vs. maximal pushing isometric muscle actions were compared. A side consideration was the behavior of torques in the course of repeated AF actions when comparing strength and endurance athletes. The elbow flexors of n = 12 males (six strength/six endurance athletes, non-professionals) were measured 30 times (120 s rest) using a pneumatic device. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) was measured pre and post. MVIC, AFisomax, and AFmax (maximal torque of one AF measurement) were evaluated regarding different considerations and statistical tests. AFmax and AFisomax declined in the course of 30 trials [slope regression (mean ± standard deviation): AFmax = −0.323 ± 0.263; AFisomax = −0.45 ± 0.45]. The decline from start to end amounted to −12.8% ± 8.3% (p < 0.001) for AFmax and −25.41% ± 26.40% (p < 0.001) for AFisomax. AF parameters declined more in strength vs. endurance athletes. Thereby, strength athletes showed a rather stable decline for AFmax and a plateau formation for AFisomax after 15 trials. In contrast, endurance athletes reduced their AFmax, especially after the first five trials, and remained on a rather similar level for AFisomax. The maximum of AFisomax of all 30 trials amounted 67.67% ± 13.60% of MVIC (p < 0.001, n = 12), supporting the hypothesis of two types of isometric muscle action (holding vs. pushing). The findings provided the first data on the behavior of torque parameters after repeated isometric–eccentric actions and revealed further insights into neuromuscular control strategies. Additionally, they highlight the importance of investigating AF parameters in athletes based on the different behaviors compared to MVIC. This is assumed to be especially relevant regarding injury mechanisms.
The Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the neuromuscular capacity to adapt to external loads during holding muscle actions and is similar to motions in real life and sports. The maximal isometric AF (AFisoₘₐₓ) was considered to be the most relevant parameter and was assumed to have major importance regarding injury mechanisms and the development of musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the behavior of different torque parameters over the course of 30 repeated maximal AF trials. In addition, maximal holding vs. maximal pushing isometric muscle actions were compared. A side consideration was the behavior of torques in the course of repeated AF actions when comparing strength and endurance athletes. The elbow flexors of n = 12 males (six strength/six endurance athletes, non-professionals) were measured 30 times (120 s rest) using a pneumatic device. Maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) was measured pre and post. MVIC, AFisoₘₐₓ, and AFₘₐₓ (maximal torque of one AF measurement) were evaluated regarding different considerations and statistical tests. AFₘₐₓ and AFisoₘₐₓ declined in the course of 30 trials [slope regression (mean ± standard deviation): AFₘₐₓ = −0.323 ± 0.263; AFisoₘₐₓ = −0.45 ± 0.45]. The decline from start to end amounted to −12.8% ± 8.3% (p < 0.001) for AFₘₐₓ and −25.41% ± 26.40% (p < 0.001) for AFisoₘₐₓ. AF parameters declined more in strength vs. endurance athletes. Thereby, strength athletes showed a rather stable decline for AFmax and a plateau formation for AFisoₘₐₓ after 15 trials. In contrast, endurance athletes reduced their AFₘₐₓ, especially after the first five trials, and remained on a rather similar level for AFisomax. The maximum of AFisoₘₐₓ of all 30 trials amounted 67.67% ± 13.60% of MVIC (p < 0.001, n = 12), supporting the hypothesis of two types of isometric muscle action (holding vs. pushing). The findings provided the first data on the behavior of torque parameters after repeated isometric–eccentric actions and revealed further insights into neuromuscular control strategies. Additionally, they highlight the importance of investigating AF parameters in athletes based on the different behaviors compared to MVIC. This is assumed to be especially relevant regarding injury mechanisms.
The pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is still not understood. There are investigations which show a changed oscillatory behaviour of brain circuits or changes in variability of, e.g., gait parameters in PD. The aim of this study was to investigate whether or not the motor output differs between PD patients and healthy controls. Thereby, patients without tremor are investigated in the medication off state performing a special bilateral isometric motor task. The force and accelerations (ACC) were recorded as well as the Mechanomyography (MMG) of the biceps brachii, the brachioradialis and of the pectoralis major muscles using piezoelectric-sensors during the bilateral motor task at 60% of the maximal isometric contraction. The frequency, a specific power ratio, the amplitude variation and the slope of amplitudes were analysed. The results indicate that the oscillatory behaviour of motor output in PD patients without tremor deviates from controls: thereby, the 95%-confidence-intervals of power ratio and of amplitude variation of all signals are disjoint between PD and controls and show significant differences in group comparisons (power ratio: p = 0.000–0.004, r = 0.441–0.579; amplitude variation: p = 0.000–0.001, r = 0.37–0.67). The mean frequency shows a significant difference for ACC (p = 0.009, r = 0.43), but not for MMG. It remains open, whether this muscular output reflects changes of brain circuits and whether the results are reproducible and specific for PD.
The pathophysiology of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is still not understood. There are investigations which show a changed oscillatory behaviour of brain circuits or changes in variability of, e.g., gait parameters in PD. The aim of this study was to investigate whether or not the motor output differs between PD patients and healthy controls. Thereby, patients without tremor are investigated in the medication off state performing a special bilateral isometric motor task. The force and accelerations (ACC) were recorded as well as the Mechanomyography (MMG) of the biceps brachii, the brachioradialis and of the pectoralis major muscles using piezoelectric-sensors during the bilateral motor task at 60% of the maximal isometric contraction. The frequency, a specific power ratio, the amplitude variation and the slope of amplitudes were analysed. The results indicate that the oscillatory behaviour of motor output in PD patients without tremor deviates from controls: thereby, the 95%-confidence-intervals of power ratio and of amplitude variation of all signals are disjoint between PD and controls and show significant differences in group comparisons (power ratio: p = 0.000–0.004, r = 0.441–0.579; amplitude variation: p = 0.000–0.001, r = 0.37–0.67). The mean frequency shows a significant difference for ACC (p = 0.009, r = 0.43), but not for MMG. It remains open, whether this muscular output reflects changes of brain circuits and whether the results are 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.