Advertisement

European Journal of Applied Physiology

, Volume 119, Issue 4, pp 1007–1018 | Cite as

Motor unit action potential amplitudes and firing rates during repetitive muscle actions of the first dorsal interosseous in children and adults

  • Jonathan D. Miller
  • Adam J. Sterczala
  • Michael A. Trevino
  • Mandy E. Wray
  • Hannah L. Dimmick
  • Trent J. HerdaEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Previous research has indicated greater muscle activation is needed for children (CH) to match relative intensity submaximal contractions in comparison with adults (AD). However, no study has compared motor unit (MU) firing and recruitment patterns between children and adults. Therefore, MU action potential amplitudes (MUAPAMP) and firing rates were examined during two repetitive submaximal contractions of the first dorsal interosseous in children and adults.

Methods

Twenty-two children (age 9.0 ± 0.8 years) and 13 adults (age 22.9 ± 4.8 years) completed three maximum voluntary contractions (MVC) and two repetitive isometric contractions at 30% MVC for 40 s. Surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded and decomposed into action potential trains. MUAPAMPS, recruitment thresholds (RTs), and mean firing rates (MFRs) were calculated, and EMG amplitude was normalized (N-EMG) to MVC. For each subject and repetition, linear MFR vs. RT and exponential MUAPAMP vs. RT and MFR vs. MUAPAMP relationships were calculated.

Results

N-EMG (P = 0.001, CH = 56.5 ± 31.7%, AD = 30.3 ± 9.1%), MFRs regardless of RT, according to greater y-intercepts of the MFR vs. RT relationships [P = 0.013, CH = 31.1 ± 5.1 pulses per second (pps), AD = 25.9 ± 4.3 pps] and MFRs of MUs with smaller action potential amplitudes (P = 0.017, CH = 29.4 ± 6.8 pps, AD = 23.5 ± 3.5 pps), were greater for children. MUAPAMPS in relation with RT were similar between groups except the highest threshold MUs (RT = 28% MVC) were greater for the adults (1.02 ± 0.43 mV) than children (0.67 ± 0.24 mV) (P = 0.010).

Conclusions

Muscle activation and MU firing rates were greater for children, which likely indicated a greater operating point of MU control in comparison with adults during an isometric contraction performed at a relative submaximal intensity.

Keywords

Children Muscle activation Motor units Electromyography Ultrasound 

Abbreviations

AD

Adults

CH

Children

CSA

Cross-sectional area

EMG

Electromyography

FDI

First dorsal interosseous

MFR

Mean firing rate

MU

Motor unit

MUAPAMP

Motor unit action potential amplitude

MUAPDUR

Motor unit action potential duration

MVC

Maximum voluntary contraction

N-EMG

Normalized electromyographic amplitude

P-EMG

Peak electromyographic amplitude

REP

Repetition

RT

Recruitment threshold

STA

Spike trigger average

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the undergraduate students who assisted in the collection of data, as well as each of the subjects for their selfless participation.

Author contributions

TJH and JDM conceived and designed the study. JDM, AJS, HLD, MEW, and MAT collected and analyzed the data. All authors interpreted the results. JDM prepared the first draft of the manuscript and figures. All authors edited the figures and manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All persons designated as authors qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify for authorship are listed. All experiments were performed in the University of Kansas Neuromechanics Laboratory.

Funding

This study was supported financially by the National Strength and Conditioning Association Foundation’s Graduate Research Grant (#0000010446) and by the University of Kansas via the General Research Fund (GRF 2301166-RSC).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University Institutional Review Boards for Human Subjects and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. Adam A, De Luca CJ (2005) Firing rates of motor units in human vastus lateralis muscle during fatiguing isometric contractions. J Appl Physiol (1985) 99:268–280.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01344.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate—a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
  3. Burnett RA, Laidlaw DH, Enoka RM (2000) Coactivation of the antagonist muscle does not covary with steadiness in old adults. J Appl Physiol (1985) 89:61–71.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Contessa P, De Luca CJ (2013) Neural control of muscle force: indications from a simulation model. J Neurophysiol 109:1548–1570.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00237.2012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Contessa P, De Luca CJ, Kline JC (2016) The compensatory interaction between motor unit firing behavior and muscle force during fatigue. J Neurophysiol 116:1579–1585.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00347.2016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Contessa P, Letizi J, De Luca G, Kline JC (2018) Contribution from motor unit firing adaptations and muscle co-activation during fatigue. J Neurophysiol.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00766.2017 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Conwit RA, Stashuk D, Tracy B, McHugh M, Brown WF, Metter EJ (1999) The relationship of motor unit size, firing rate and force. Clin Neurophysiol 110:1270–1275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. De Luca CJ, Contessa P (2011) Hierarchical control of motor units in voluntary contractions. J Neurophysiol 107:178–195.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00961.2010 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. De Luca CJ, Erim Z (1994) Common drive of motor units in regulation of muscle force. Trends Neurosci 17:299–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. De Luca CJ, LeFever RS, McCue MP, Xenakis AP (1982) Behaviour of human motor units in different muscles during linearly varying contractions. J Physiol 329:113–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. De Luca CJ, Foley PJ, Erim Z (1996) Motor unit control properties in constant-force isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol 76:1503–1516CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Ruiter CJ, Elzinga MJ, Verdijk PW, van Mechelen W, de Haan A (2005) Changes in force, surface and motor unit EMG during post-exercise development of low frequency fatigue in vastus lateralis muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol 94:659–669.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-005-1356-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. De Luca CJ, Adam A, Wotiz R, Gilmore LD, Nawab SH (2006) Decomposition of surface EMG signals. J Neurophysiol 96:1646–1657.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00009.2006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorfman LJ, Howard JE, McGill KC (1990) Triphasic behavioral response of motor units to submaximal fatiguing exercise. Muscle Nerve 13:621–628.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.880130711 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Dotan R, Mitchell C, Cohen R, Klentrou P, Gabriel D, Falk B (2012) Child-adult differences in muscle activation—a review. Pediatr Exerc Sci 24:2–21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Farina D, Holobar A, Gazzoni M, Zazula D, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2009) Adjustments differ among low-threshold motor units during intermittent, isometric contractions. J Neurophysiol 101:350–359.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.90968.2008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Farina D, Holobar A, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2010) Decoding the neural drive to muscles from the surface electromyogram. Clin Neurophysiol 121:1616–1623.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.10.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldberg LJ, Derfler B (1977) Relationship among recruitment order, spike amplitude, and twitch tension of single motor units in human masseter muscle. J Neurophysiol 40:879–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Grosset JF, Mora I, Lambertz D, Perot C (2008) Voluntary activation of the triceps surae in prepubertal children. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18:455–465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hakansson CH (1956) Conduction velocity and amplitude of the action potential as related to circumference in the isolated fibre of frog muscle. Acta Physiol Scand 37:14–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1956.tb01338.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Henneman E (1957) Relation between size of neurons and their susceptibility to discharge. Science 126:1345–1347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Herda TJ, Siedlik JA, Trevino MA, Cooper MA, Weir JP (2015) Motor unit control strategies of endurance- versus resistance-trained individuals. Muscle Nerve 52:832–843.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24597 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hodgson M, Docherty D, Robbins D (2005) Post-activation potentiation: underlying physiology and implications for motor performance. Sports Med 35:585–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013a) Assessment of validity of a high-yield surface electromyogram decomposition. J Neuroeng Rehabil 10:99.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-0003-10-99 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013b) Motor unit pool organization examined via spike-triggered averaging of the surface electromyogram. J Neurophysiol 110:1205–1220.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00301.2012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu X, Rymer WZ, Suresh NL (2013c) Reliability of spike triggered averaging of the surface electromyogram for motor unit action potential estimation. Muscle Nerve 48:557–570.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23819 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kamen G, Sison SV, Du CC, Patten C (1995) Motor unit discharge behavior in older adults during maximal-effort contractions. J Appl Physiol (1985) 79:1908–1913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keenan KG, Farina D, Maluf KS, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2005) Influence of amplitude cancellation on the simulated surface electromyogram. J Appl Physiol (1985) 98:120–131.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00894.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein CS, Hager-Ross CK, Thomas CK (2006) Fatigue properties of human thenar motor units paralysed by chronic spinal cord injury. J Physiol 573:161–171.  https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2005.103044 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Lambertz D, Mora I, Grosset JF, Perot C (2003) Evaluation of musculotendinous stiffness in prepubertal children and adults, taking into account muscle activity. J Appl Physiol (1985) 95:64–72.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00885.2002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martinez Valdes E, Negro F, Falla D, De Nunzio AM, Farina D (2018) Surface EMG amplitude does not identify differences in neural drive to synergistic muscles. J Appl Physiol (1985).  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01115.2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Masakado Y, Noda Y, Nagata MA, Kimura A, Chino N, Akaboshi K (1994) Macro-EMG and motor unit recruitment threshold: differences between the young and the aged. Neurosci Lett 179:1–4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Masakado Y, Akaboshi K, Nagata M, Kimura A, Chino N (1995) Motor unit firing behavior in slow and fast contractions of the first dorsal interosseous muscle of healthy men. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 97:290–295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. McGill KC, Lateva ZC, Marateb HR (2005) EMGLAB: an interactive EMG decomposition program. J Neurosci Methods 149:121–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2005.05.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. McManus L, Hu X, Rymer WZ, Lowery MM, Suresh NL (2015) Changes in motor unit behavior following isometric fatigue of the first dorsal interosseous muscle. J Neurophysiol 113:3186–3196.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00146.2015 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. McNeil CJ, Butler JE, Taylor JL, Gandevia SC (2013) Testing the excitability of human motoneurons. Front Hum Neurosci 7:152.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00152 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Miller JD, Herda TJ, Trevino MA, Sterczala AJ, Ciccone AB, Nicoll JX (2017) Age-related differences in twitch properties and muscle activation of the first dorsal interosseous. Clin Neurophysiol 128:925–934.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2017.03.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller JD, Sterczala AJ, Trevino MA, Herda TJ (2018) Examination of muscle composition and motor unit behavior of the first dorsal interosseous of normal and overweight children. J Neurophysiol 119:1902–1911.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00675.2017 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Milner-Brown HS, Stein RB (1975) The relation between the surface electromyogram and muscular force. J Physiol 246:549–569CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Monster AW, Chan H (1977) Isometric force production by motor units of extensor digitorum communis muscle in man. J Neurophysiol 40:1432–1443.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1977.40.6.1432 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Morse CI, Tolfrey K, Thom JM, Vassilopoulos V, Maganaris CN, Narici MV (2008) Gastrocnemius muscle specific force in boys and men. J Appl Physiol (1985) 104:469–474.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00697.2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Murphy JR, Button DC, Chaouachi A, Behm DG (2014) Prepubescent males are less susceptible to neuromuscular fatigue following resistance exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol 114:825–835.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-013-2809-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Nawab SH, Chang SS, De Luca CJ (2010) High-yield decomposition of surface EMG signals. Clin Neurophysiol 121:1602–1615.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.11.092 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. O’Brien TD, Reeves ND, Baltzopoulos V, Jones DA, Maganaris CN (2010) In vivo measurements of muscle specific tension in adults and children. Exp Physiol 95:202–210.  https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.2009.048967 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Paasuke M, Ereline J, Gapeyeva H (2000) Twitch contraction properties of plantar flexor muscles in pre- and post-pubertal boys and men. Eur J Appl Physiol 82:459–464.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s004210000236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Person RS, Kudina LP (1972) Discharge frequency and discharge pattern of human motor units during voluntary contraction of muscle. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 32:471–483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Pope ZK, Hester GM, Benik FM, DeFreitas JM (2016) Action potential amplitude as a noninvasive indicator of motor unit-specific hypertrophy. J Neurophysiol 115:2608–2614.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00039.2016 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Ratel S, Duche P, Williams CA (2006) Muscle fatigue during high-intensity exercise in children. Sports Med 36:1031–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sandercock TG, Faulkner JA, Albers JW, Abbrecht PH (1985) Single motor unit and fiber action potentials during fatigue. J Appl Physiol (1985) 58:1073–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1152/jappl.1985.58.4.1073 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sterczala AJ, Herda TJ, Miller JD, Ciccone AB, Trevino MA (2017) Age-related differences in the motor unit action potential size in relation to recruitment threshold. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cpf.12453 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Sterczala AJ, Miller JD, Trevino MA, Dimmick HL, Herda TJ (2018) Differences in the motor unit firing rates and amplitudes in relation to recruitment thresholds during submaximal contractions of the first dorsal interosseous between chronically resistance trained and physically active men. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab.  https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2017-0646 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Stock MS, Beck TW, Defreitas JM (2012) Effects of fatigue on motor unit firing rate versus recruitment threshold relationships. Muscle Nerve 45:100–109.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.22266 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tanji J, Kato M (1973) Firing rate of individual motor units in voluntary contraction of abductor digiti minimi muscle in man. Exp Neurol 40:771–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Trevino MA et al (2018) Sex-related differences in muscle size explained by amplitudes of higher-threshold motor unit action potentials and muscle fiber typing. Acta Physiol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Watanabe K, Holobar A, Kouzaki M, Ogawa M, Akima H, Moritani T (2016) Age-related changes in motor unit firing pattern of vastus lateralis muscle during low-moderate contraction. Age 38:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan D. Miller
    • 1
  • Adam J. Sterczala
    • 1
  • Michael A. Trevino
    • 2
  • Mandy E. Wray
    • 1
  • Hannah L. Dimmick
    • 1
  • Trent J. Herda
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Neuromechanics Laboratory, Department of Health, Sport, and Exercise SciencesUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  2. 2.Applied Neuromuscular Physiology Laboratory, School of Kinesiology, Applied Health, and RecreationOklahoma State UniversityStillwaterUSA

Personalised recommendations