Journal of Applied Physiology Fuel your research with LabChart
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Appl Physiol 101: 1312-1319, 2006. First published June 29, 2006; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00385.2006
8750-7587/06 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
101/5/1312    most recent
00385.2006v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shields, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, K. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shields, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Cole, K. R.

Feedback-controlled stimulation enhances human paralyzed muscle performance

Richard K. Shields, Shauna Dudley-Javoroski, and Keith R. Cole

Graduate Program in Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Submitted 31 March 2006 ; accepted in final form 25 June 2006

Chronically paralyzed muscle requires extensive training before it can deliver a therapeutic dose of repetitive stress to the musculoskeletal system. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, under feedback control, may subvert the effects of fatigue, yielding more rapid and extensive adaptations to training. The purposes of this investigation were to 1) compare the effectiveness of torque feedback-controlled (FDBCK) electrical stimulation with classic open-loop constant-frequency (CONST) stimulation, and 2) ascertain which of three stimulation strategies best maintains soleus torque during repetitive stimulation. When torque declined by 10%, the FDBCK protocol modulated the base stimulation frequency in three ways: by a fixed increase, by a paired pulse (doublet) at the beginning of the stimulation train, and by a fixed decrease. The stimulation strategy that most effectively restored torque continued for successive contractions. This process repeated each time torque declined by 10%. In fresh muscle, FDBCK stimulation offered minimal advantage in maintaining peak torque or mean torque over CONST stimulation. As long-duration fatigue developed in subsequent bouts, FDBCK stimulation became most effective (~40% higher final normalized torque than CONST). The high-frequency strategy was selected ~90% of the time, supporting that excitation-contraction coupling compromise and not neuromuscular transmission failure contributed to fatigue of paralyzed muscle. Ideal stimulation strategies may vary according to the site of fatigue; this stimulation approach offered the advantage of online modulation of stimulation strategies in response to fatigue conditions. Based on stress-adaptation principles, FDBCK-controlled stimulation may enhance training effects in chronically paralyzed muscle.

fatigue; spinal cord injury; doublet; excitation-contraction coupling



Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: R. K. Shields, Graduate Program in Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Science, The Univ. of Iowa, 1–252 Medical Education Bldg., Iowa City, IA 52242–1190 (e-mail: richard-shields{at}uiowa.edu)




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ptjournalHome page
L.-W. Chou, T. M Kesar, and S. A Binder-Macleod
Using Customized Rate-Coding and Recruitment Strategies to Maintain Forces During Repetitive Activation of Human Muscles
Physical Therapy, March 1, 2008; 88(3): 363 - 375.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2006 by the American Physiological Society.