Advertisement

Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 187, Issue 3, pp 373–385 | Cite as

Endpoint accuracy for a small and a large hand muscle in young and old adults during rapid, goal-directed isometric contractions

  • Brach PostonEmail author
  • Joel A. Enoka
  • Roger M. Enoka
Research Article

Abstract

The minimum variance theory proposes that stronger (larger) muscles produce less variable trajectories compared with weaker (smaller) muscles and thus can accomplish more accurate contractions. The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of muscle size and trajectory variability on the endpoint accuracy of goal-directed isometric contractions. Twelve young (25 ± 5 years) and 12 old adults (76 ± 6 years) performed 100 trials with each of two muscles in both hands. Subjects were instructed to match the peak of a force trajectory to a target force by controlling either the abduction (first dorsal interosseus muscle; FDI) or adduction force (second palmar interosseus muscle; SPI) exerted by the index finger of each hand. The time to peak force was 150 ms and the peak force required was 25% of the maximal force that could be achieved in 150 ms. Endpoint accuracy and variability in force and time along with intramuscular EMG activity of the agonist muscle (FDI and SPI) involved in each task were quantified for each set of 100 trials. The MVC force was less for the SPI muscle, and the force endpoint error and variance were greater in the SPI muscle compared with the FDI muscle. Conversely, endpoint measures that included timing were similar for the two muscles. Trajectory variability was greater for the FDI muscle, but did not influence endpoint error for either muscle. The young and old adults had similar strength values, but the old adults were less accurate and more variable than the young subjects. Nonetheless, the accuracy and variability displayed by the old adults for the two muscles was the same as that observed for the young adults. The force accuracy and variability findings are consistent with the predictions of the minimum variance theory that motor-output variability is inversely related to muscle size, strength, and motor unit number.

Keywords

Accuracy Variability Aging EMG Hand 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The National Institute on Aging supported the study with an award to R.M. Enoka (AG09000). Brach Poston was supported by a pre-doctoral training fellowship (T32 AG00279-05; P.I. Robert Schwartz, MD).

References

  1. Berardelli A, Hallett M, Rothwell JC, Agostino R, Manfredi M, Thompson PD, Marsden CD (1996) Single-joint rapid arm movements in normal subjects and in patients with motor disorders. Brain 119:661–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhard CG, Bohm E, Petersen I (1953) New investigations on the pyramidal system in Macaca mulatta. Experientia 9:111–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brouwer B, Ashby P (1990) Corticospinal projections to upper and lower limb spinal motoneurons in man. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 76:509–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett RA, Laidlaw DH, Enoka RM (2000) Coactivation of the antagonist muscle does not covary with steadiness in old adults. J Appl Physiol 89:61–71PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpentier A, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (2001) Motor unit behaviour and contractile changes during fatigue in the human first dorsal interosseus. J Physiol 534:903–912PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao EYS, An KN, Cooney WP III, Linscheid RL (1989) Biomechanics of the hand. a basic research study. World Scientific Publishing, TeaneackGoogle Scholar
  7. Christou EA, Grossman M, Carlton LG (2002) Modeling variability of force during isometric contractions of the quadriceps femoris. J Mot Behav 34:67–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Christou EA, Shinohara M, Enoka RM (2003a) Fluctuations in acceleration during voluntary contractions lead to greater impairment of movement accuracy in old adults. J Appl Physiol 95:373–384PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Christou EA, Zelent M, Carlton LG (2003b) Force control is greater in the upper compared with the lower extremity. J Mot Behav 35:322–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Christou EA, Enoka JA, Poston B, Enoka RM (2005)a End-point variability contributes to the impaired end-point accuracy in older adults. Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 757.1Google Scholar
  11. Christou EA, Poston B, Enoka JA, Enoka RM (2007) Different neural adjustments improve endpoint accuracy with practice in young and old adults. J Neurophysiol 97:3340–3350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling WG, Cooke JD (1987) Changes in the variability of movement trajectories with practice. J Mot Behav 19:291–309PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Darling WG, Cooke JD, Brown SH (1989) Control of simple arm movements in elderly humans. Neurobiol Aging 10:149–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Datta AK, Stephens JA (1990) Synchronization of motor unit activity during voluntary contraction in man. J Physiol 422:397–419PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. De Luca CJ, LeFever RS, McCue MP, Xenakis AP (1982) Behaviour of human motor units in different muscles during linearly varying contractions. J Physiol 329:113–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Desmedt JE, Godaux E (1978) Ballistic contractions in fast or slow human muscles: discharge patterns of single motor units. J Physiol 285:185–196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Enoka RM, Fuglevand AJ (2001) Motor unit physiology: some unresolved issues. Muscle Nerve 24:4–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feinstein B, Lindegard B, Nyman E, Wohlfart G (1955) Morphologic studies of motor units in normal human muscles. Acta Anat (Basel) 23:127–142Google Scholar
  19. Fitts PM (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol 47:381–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottlieb GL (2001) Influence of strategy on muscle activity during impact movements. J Mot Behav 33:235–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gribble PL, Mullin LI, Cothros N, Mattar A (2003) Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy. J Neurophysiol 89:2396–2405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hamilton AF, Wolpert DM (2002) Controlling the statistics of action: obstacle avoidance. J Neurophysiol 87:2434–2440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hamilton AF, Jones KE, Wolpert DM (2004) The scaling of motor noise with muscle size and motor unit number. Exp Brain Res 157:417–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris CM, Wolpert DM (1998) Signal-dependent noise determines motor planning. Nature 394:780–784PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hodges PW, Bui BH (1996) A comparison of computer-based methods for the determination of onset of muscle contraction using electromyography. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 101:511–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobson MD, Raab R, Fazeli BM, Abrams RA, Botte MJ, Lieber RL (1992) Architectural design of the human intrinsic hand muscles. J Hand Surg [Am] 17:804–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jenny AB, Inukai J (1983) Principles of motor organization of the monkey cervical spinal cord. J Neurosci 3:567–575PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones KE, Hamilton AF, Wolpert DM (2002) Sources of signal-dependent noise during isometric force production. J Neurophysiol 88:1533–1544PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keen DA, Yue GH, Enoka RM (1994) Training-related enhancement in the control of motor output in elderly humans. J Appl Physiol 77:2648–2658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kern DS, Semmler JG, Enoka RM (2001) Long-term activity in upper- and lower-limb muscles of humans. J Appl Physiol 91:2224–2232PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kossev A, Elek JM, Wohlfarth K, Schubert M, Dengler R, Wolf W (1994) Assessment of human motor unit twitches—a comparison of spike-triggered averaging and intramuscular microstimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 93:100–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krakauer J, Ghez C (2000) Voluntary movement. In: Kandel E, Schwartz J, Jessell T (eds) Principles of neural science, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 756–781Google Scholar
  33. Kukulka CG, Clamann HP (1981) Comparison of the recruitment and discharge properties of motor units in human brachial biceps and adductor pollicis during isometric contractions. Brain Res 219:45–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langolf GD, Chaffin DB, Foulke JA (1976) An investigation of Fitts’ law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. J Motor Behav 8:113–128Google Scholar
  35. Lemon RN (1993) The G. L. Brown Prize Lecture. Cortical control of the primate hand. Exp Physiol 78:263–301PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Li ZM, Pfaeffle HJ, Sotereanos DG, Goitz RJ, Woo SL (2003) Multi-directional strength and force envelope of the index finger. Clin Biomech 18:908–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marsden CD, Obeso JA, Rothwell JC (1983) The function of the antagonist muscle during fast limb movements in man. J Physiol 335:1–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McComas AJ (1998) ISEK Congress Keynote Lecture: motor units: how many, how large, what kind? J Electromyogr Kinesiol 8:391–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Muller H, Sternad D (2004) Decomposition of variability in the execution of goal-oriented tasks: three components of skill improvement. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:212–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newell KM, Carlton LG (1985) On the relationship between peak force and peak force variability in isometric tasks. J Mot Behav 17:230–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Newell KM, Slifkin AB (1998) The nature of movement variability. In: Piek JJ (ed) Motor behavior and human skill. Human Kinetics, Champaign, pp 143–60Google Scholar
  42. Newell KM, Carlton LG, Hancock PA (1984) Kinetic analysis of response variability. Psychol Bull 96:133–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Plamondon R, Alimi AM (1997) Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements. Behav Brain Sci 20:279–303; Discussion 303–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pohl PS, Winstein CJ, Fisher BE (1996) The locus of age-related movement slowing: sensory processing in continuous goal-directed aiming. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 51:P94–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Poston B, Enoka JA, Christou EA, Enoka RM (2005) The minimum variance theory fails to predict end-point accuracy during slow goal-directed, isometric contractions. Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 990.21Google Scholar
  47. Poston B, Enoka JA, Wiseman C, Acosta E, Enoka RM (2006) End-point accuracy is similar for two hand muscles of different sizes during rapid isometric contractions. Soc Neurosci (Abstr) 742.10Google Scholar
  48. Poston B, Enoka JA, Enoka RM (2007) Practice and endpoint accuracy with the left and right hands of old adults: the right hemisphere aging model. Muscle Nerve (in press)Google Scholar
  49. Sainburg RL (2005) Handedness: differential specializations for control of trajectory and position. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 33:206–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shadmehr R, Wise SP (2005) The computational neurobiology of pointing and reaching. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Shinohara M, Keenan KG, Enoka RM (2003) Contralateral activity in a homologous hand muscle during voluntary contractions is greater in old adults. J Appl Physiol 94:966–974PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Shinohara M, Keenan KG, Enoka RM (2005) Fluctuations in motor output during steady contractions are weakly related across contraction types and between hands. Muscle Nerve 31:741–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Slifkin AB, Newell KM (1999) Noise, information transmission and force variability. J Exp Psychol Hum Percep Perf 25:837–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Slifkin AB, Newell KM (2000) Variability and noise in continuous force production. J Mot Behav 32:141–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sosnoff JJ, Newell KM (2006) Are age-related increases in force variability due to decrements in strength? Exp Brain Res 174:86–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanaka H, Krakauer JW, Quin N (2006) An optimization principle for determining movement duration. J Neurophysiol 95: 3875–3886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomas CK, Ross BH, Calancie B (1987) Human motor-unit recruitment during isometric contractions and repeated dynamic movements. J Neurophysiol 57:311–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Tracy BL, Mehoudar PD, Ortega JD (2006) The amplitude of force variability is correlated in the knee extensor and elbow flexor muscles. Exp Brain Res 176:448–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Cutsem M, Duchateau J, Hainaut K (1998) Changes in single motor unit behaviour contribute to the increase in contraction speed after dynamic training. J Physiol 513:295–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Beers RJ, Haggard P, Wolpert DM (2004) The role of execution noise in movement variability. J Neurophysiol 91:1050–1063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker N, Philbin DA, Fisk AD (1997) Age-related differences in movement control: adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 52:P40–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Waters P, Strick PL (1981) Influence of “strategy” on muscle activity during ballistic movements. Brain Res 207:189–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wierzbicka MM, Wiegner AW (1996) Accuracy of motor responses in subjects with and without control of antagonist muscle. J Neurophysiol 75:2533–2541PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brach Poston
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joel A. Enoka
    • 1
  • Roger M. Enoka
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Integrative PhysiologyUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of KinesiologyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations