Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 196, Issue 4, pp 483–496 | Cite as

Training-induced changes in the pattern of triceps to biceps activation during reaching tasks after chronic and severe stroke

  • Ruth Nancy Barker
  • Sandra Brauer
  • Richard Carson
Research Article

Abstract

This exploratory study was undertaken to investigate the mechanisms that contributed to improvements in upper limb function following a novel training program. Surface electromyography (EMG) was used to examine training-induced changes in the pattern of triceps and biceps activation during reaching tasks in stroke survivors with severe paresis in the chronic stage of recovery. The EMG data were obtained in the context of a single blind randomised clinical trial conducted with 42 stroke survivors with minimal upper limb muscle activity and who were more than 6 months post-stroke. Of the 33 participants who completed the study, 10 received training of reaching using a non-robotic upper limb training device, the SMART Arm, with EMG triggered functional electrical stimulation (EMG-stim), 13 received training of reaching using the SMART Arm alone, and 10 received no intervention. Each intervention group engaged in 12 1-h training sessions over a 4-week period. Clinical and laboratory measures of upper limb function were administered prior to training (0 weeks), at completion (4 weeks) and 2 months (12 weeks) after training. The primary outcome measure was ‘upper arm function’ which is Item 6 of the Motor Assessment Scale (MAS). Laboratory measures consisted of two multijoint reaching tasks to assess ‘maximum isometric force’ and ‘maximum distance reached’. Surface EMG was used to monitor triceps brachii and biceps brachii during the two reaching tasks. To provide a comparison with normal values, seven healthy adults were tested on one of the reaching tasks according to the same procedure. Study findings demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in upper limb function for stroke participants in the two training groups compared to those who received no training however no difference was found between the two training groups. For the reaching tasks, all stroke participants, when compared to normal healthy adults, exhibited lower triceps and biceps activation and a lower ratio of triceps to biceps activation. Following training, stroke participants demonstrated increased triceps activation and an increased ratio of triceps to biceps activation for the task that was trained. Better performance was associated with greater triceps activation and a higher ratio of triceps to biceps activation. The findings suggest that increased activation of triceps as an agonist and an improved coordination between triceps and biceps could have mediated the observed changes in arm function. The changes in EMG activity were small relative to the changes in arm function indicating that factors, such as the contribution of other muscles of reaching, may also be implicated.

Keywords

EMG Stroke Rehabilitation Reaching 

References

  1. Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P (2002) Increased rate of force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training. J Appl Physiol 93(4):1318–1326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ada L, Canning CG, Low S (2003) Stroke patients have selective weakness in shortened range. Brain 126:724–731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker RN, Brauer SG, Carson RG (2008) Training of reaching in stroke survivors with severe and chronic upper limb paresis using a novel nonrobotic device: a randomized clinical trial. Stroke 39(6):1800–1807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry BK, Warman GE, Carson RG (2005) Age-related differences in rapid muscle activation after rate of force development training of the elbow flexors. Exp Brain Res 162(1):122–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bobath B (1990) Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment. William-Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourbonnais D, Vanden Noven S (1989) Weakness in patients with hemiparesis. Am J Occup Ther 43:313–319PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Canning CG, Ada L, O’Dwyer N (1999) Slowness to develop force contributes to weakness after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80:66–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr J, Shepherd R (2003) Stroke Rehabilitation: guidelines for exercise and training to optimize motor skill. Butterworth-Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr J, Shepherd R, Nordholm L, Lynne D (1985) Investigation of the motor assessment scale for stroke patients. Physiotherapy 65(2):175–179Google Scholar
  10. Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG (2002) The sites of neural adaptation induced by resistance training in humans. J Physiol 544(Pt 2):641–652PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chae J, Yang G, Park BK, Labatia I (2002) Muscle weakness and co-contraction in upper limb hemiparesis: relationship to motor impairment and physical disability. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 16(3):241–248PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  13. Cruz EG, Waldinger HC, Kamper DG (2005) Kinetic and kinematic workspaces of the index finger following stroke. Brain 128(Pt 5):1112–1121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delitto A, Snyder-Mackler L (1990) Two theories of muscle strength augmentation using percutaneous electrical stimulation. Phys Ther 70:158–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dewald JP, Pope PS, Given JD, Buchanan TS, Rymer WZ (1995) Abnormal muscle coactivation patterns during isometric torque generation at the elbow and shoulder in hemiparetic subjects. Brain 118(2):495–510PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Edstrom L, Grimby L (1986) Effects of exercise on the motor unit. Muscle Nerve 9:104–126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flament D, Shapiro MB, Kempf T, Corcos DM (1999) Time course and temporal order of changes in movement kinematics during learning of fast and accurate elbow flexions. Exp Brain Res 129(3):441–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gemperline JJ, Allen S, Walk D, Rymer WZ (1995) Characteristics of motor unit discharge in subjects with hemiparesis. Muscle Nerve 18:1101–1114PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gielen SCAM (1999) What does EMG tell us about muscle function? Motor Control 3:9–11PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gowland C, deBruin H, Basmajian JV, Plews N, Burcea I (1992) Agonist and antagonist activity during voluntary upper-limb movement in patients with stroke. Phys Ther 72(9):624–633PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Hachisuka KJ, Umezu YC, Ogata HJ (1997) Disuse muscle atrophy of lower limbs in hemiplegic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 78(1):13–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hakkinen K, Newton RU, Gordon SE, McCormick M, Volek JS, Nindl BC et al (1998) Changes in muscle morphology, electromyographic activity, and force production characteristics during progressive strength training in young and older men. J Gerontol 53(6):B415–B423Google Scholar
  23. Hammond MC, Fitts S, Kraft G (1988) Recruitment and termination of electomyographic activity in the hemiparetic forearm. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 69(2):106–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hara Y, Masakado Y, Chino N (2004) The physiological functional loss of single thenar motor units in the stroke patients: when does it occur? Does it progress? Clin Neurophysiol 115:97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hermens HJ, Freriks B, Disselhorst-Klug C, Rau G (2000) Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 10(5):361–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu X, Tong KY, Song R, Tsang VS, Leung PO, Li L (2007) Variation of muscle coactivation patterns in chronic stroke during robot-assisted elbow training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(8):1022–1029PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu XL, Tong KY, Song R, Zheng XJ, Lui KH, Leung WW et al (2008) Quantitative evaluation of motor functional recovery process in chronic stroke patients during robot-assisted wrist training. J Electromyogr Kinesiol [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  28. Johansson RS, Hager C, Riso R (1992) Somatosensory control of precision grip during unpredictable pulling loads. II. Changes in load force rate. Exp Brain Res 89:192–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levin MF (1996) Interjoint coordination during pointing movements is disrupted in spastic hemiparesis. Brain 119:281–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levin MF, Dimov M (1997) Spatial zones for muscle coactivation and the control of postural stability. Exp Brain Res 757(1):43–59Google Scholar
  31. Lindeman E, Spaans F, Reulen J, Leffers P, Drukker J (1999) Progressive resistance training in neuromuscular patients. Effects on force and surface EMG. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 9:379–384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC (2003) Evidence for strength imbalances as a significant contributor to abnormal synergies in hemiparetic subjects. Muscle Nerve 27:211–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lum PS, Burgar CG, Shor PC (2004) Evidence for improved muscle activation patterns after retraining of reaching movements with the MIME robotic system in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. IEEE Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 12(2):186–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McCrea PH, Eng JJ, Hodgson AJ (2005) Saturated muscle activation contributes to compensatory reaching strategies following stroke. J Neurophysiol 94(5):2999–3008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Michaelsen SM, Dannenbaum R, Levin MF (2006) Task-specific training with trunk restraint on arm recovery in stroke: randomized control trial. Stroke 37(1):186–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moritani T, deVries HA (1979) Neural factors versus hypertrophy in the time course of muscle strength gain. Am J Phys Med 58:115–130PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Musampa NK, Mathieu PA, Levin MF (2007) Relationship between stretch reflex thresholds and voluntary arm muscle activation in patients with spasticity. Exp Brain Res 181(4):579–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newsam CJ, Baker LL (2004) Effect of an electrical stimulation facilitation program on quadriceps motor unit recruitment after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:2040–2045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rutherford OM (1988) Muscular coordination and strength training: implications for injury rehabilitation. Sports Med 5:196–202PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sale DG (1988) Neural adaptation to resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20(5):S135–S145PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sinkjaer T, Magnussen I (1994) Passive, intrinsic and reflex-mediated stiffness in the ankle extensors of hemiparetic patients. Brain 117(Pt 2):355–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stephens JA, Garnett R, Buller NP (1978) Reversal of recruitment order of single motor units produced by cutaneous stimulation during voluntary muscle contraction in man. Nature 272(5651):362–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stevens JE, Walter GA, Okereke E, Scarborough MT, Esterhai JL, George SZ et al (2004) Muscle adaptations with immobilisation and rehabilitation after ankle fracture. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36(10):1695–1701PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stevens JE, Pathare NC, Tillman SM, Scarborough MT, Gibbs CP, Shah P et al (2006) Relative contributions of muscle activation and muscle size to plantarflexor torque during rehabilitation after immobilization. J Orthop Res 24(8):1729–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wagner JM, Dromerick AW, Sahrmann SA, Lang CE (2007) Upper extremity muscle activation during recovery of reaching in subjects with post-stroke hemiparesis. Clin Neurophysiol 118(1):164–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wolf SL, Catlin PA, Blanton S, Edelman J, Lehrer N, Schroeder D (1994) Overcoming limitations in elbow movement in the presence of antagonist hyperactivity. Phys Ther 74(9):826–835PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruth Nancy Barker
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandra Brauer
    • 2
  • Richard Carson
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Discipline of PhysiotherapyJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Division of PhysiotherapyUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.School of PsychologyQueen’s UniversityBelfastIreland
  4. 4.School of Human Movement StudiesUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations