The effects of very high stimulation frequency on fatigue of the quadriceps femoris muscle in healthy participants: A pilot study

Main Article Content

Kitima Rongsawad Jonjin Ratanapinunchai

Abstract

Background: The main limitation of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is the muscle fatigue. According to previous studies, stimulation frequency has the greatest influence on rate of muscle fatigue. However, most of studies have been focused on high stimulation frequency but less than 100 Hz. We proposed that using a very high frequency may produce asynchronous motor unit recruitment and similar or less muscle fatigue.
Objectives: To examine the effects of very high (150 and 200 Hz) and low (50 Hz) stimulation frequencies on the declining stimulated muscle force.
Methods: Nine healthy participants underwent a fatigue test using 3 stimulation frequencies (50, 150, and 200 Hz) combined with wide pulse duration (0.9 ms) for 15 minutes fatigue test. Muscle fatigue was assessed using the normalized force values at the end of each stimulation frequency protocol.
Results: No difference in muscle fatigue was found when compared between very high frequency (150-200 Hz) and low frequency (50 Hz) combined with wide pulse duration conditions during a 15-minute fatigue test.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that both very high and low frequencies combined with wide pulse duration showed no differences in muscle fatigue. Further studies with a larger sample size are needed for confirmation.

Keywords

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Rongsawad K, Ratanapinunchai J. The effects of very high stimulation frequency on fatigue of the quadriceps femoris muscle in healthy participants: A pilot study. Thai Journal of Physical Therapy [Internet]. 16Dec.2017 [cited 21Oct.2018];39(3):111-9. Available from: https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tjpt/article/view/112192
Section
Research Articles

References

Currier DP, Mann R. Muscular strength development by electrical stimulation in healthy individuals. Phys Ther. 1983; 63(6): 915–21.

Chae J, Sheffler LR, Knutson JS. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation for motor restoration in hemiplegia. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2008; 15(5): 412–26.

Glanz M, Klawansky S, Stason W, Berkey C, Chalmers TC. Functional electrostimulation in poststroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996; 77(6): 549–53.

Glinsky J, Harvey L, Van Es P. Efficacy of electrical stimulation to increase muscle strength in people with neurological conditions: a systematic review. Physiother Res Int. 2007; 12(3): 175–94.

Maffiuletti NA. Physiological and methodological considerations for the use of neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2010; 110(2): 223–34.

Kesar T, Binder-Macleod S. Effect of frequency and pulse duration on human muscle fatigue during repetitive electrical stimulation. Exp Physiol. 2006; 91(6): 967–76.

Dreibati B, Lavet C, Pinti A, Poumarat G. Influence of electrical stimulation frequency on skeletal muscle force and fatigue. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2010; 53(4): 266–77.

Gregory CM, Dixon W, Bickel CS. Impact of varying pulse frequency and duration on muscle torque production and fatigue. Muscle Nerve. 2007; 35(4): 504–9.

Matsunaga T, Shimada Y, Sato K. Muscle fatigue from intermittent stimulation with low and high frequency electrical pulses. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80(1): 48–53.

Russ DW, Vandenborne K, Walter GA, Elliott M, Binder-Macleod SA. Effects of muscle activation on fatigue and metabolism in human skeletal muscle. J Appl Physiol. 2002; 92(5): 1978–86.

Gorgey AS, Mahoney E, Kendall T, Dudley GA. Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation parameters on specific tension. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006; 97(6): 737–44.

Scott WB, Causey JB, Marshall TL. Comparison of maximum tolerated muscle torques produced by 2 pulse durations. Phys Ther. 2009; 89(8): 851–7.

Gorgey AS, Dudley GA. The role of pulse duration and stimulation duration in maximizing the normalized torque during neuromuscular electrical stimulation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008; 38(8): 508–16.

Dean JC, Yates LM, Collins DF. Turning on the central contribution to contractions evoked by neuromuscular electrical stimulation. J Appl Physiol. 2007; 103(1): 170–6.

Collins DF. Central Contributions to Contractions Evoked by Tetanic Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation: Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2007; 35(3): 102–9.

Martin A, Grosprêtre S, Vilmen C, et al. The Etiology of Muscle Fatigue Differs between Two Electrical Stimulation Protocols. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016; 48(8):1474–84.

Reed B. The Physiology of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation. Pediatr Phys Ther. 1997; 9(3): 96–102.

Guyton AC. Textbook of medical physiology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2006.

Borg J. Refractory period of single motor nerve fibres in man. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1984; 47(4): 344–48.

Kimura J, Yamada T, Rodnitzky RL. Refractory period of human motor nerve fibres. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1978; 41(9): 784–90.

Willems MET, Ponte JPG. Divergent muscle fatigue during unilateral isometric contractions of dominant and non-dominant quadriceps. J Sci Med Sport. 2013; 16(3): 240–4.

Wegrzyk J, Fouré A, Fur YL, Maffiuletti NA, Vilmen C, Guye M, et al. Responders to wide-pulse, high-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation show reduced metabolic demand: A 31 P-MRS study in humans. PLOS ONE.2015; 10:e0143972. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0143972.