Advertisement

Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 57, Issue 11, pp 2407–2415 | Cite as

Badminton players show a lower coactivation and higher beta band intermuscular interactions of ankle antagonist muscles during isokinetic exercise

  • Lejun WangEmail author
  • Wenxin NiuEmail author
  • Kuan Wang
  • Shengnian Zhang
  • Li Li
  • Tianfeng Lu
Original Article
  • 95 Downloads

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that skilled athletes may show a specific muscle activation pattern with a lower antagonist coactivation level. Based on the point, we hypothesize that the coupling of antagonistic muscles may be different between badminton players and non-skilled individuals during exercises. The current work was designed to verify the hypothesis. Ten male college students and eight male badminton players performed three maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVC) and a set of three maximal concentric ankle dorsiflexion and plantar flexions at an angular velocity of 30°, 60°, 120°, and 180°/s. Surface electromyography (EMG) was recorded from the tibialis anterior (TA) and lateral gastrocnemius (LG) muscles during the test. Normalized average EMG amplitude and phase synchronization index (PSI) between surface EMG of TA and LG were calculated. Antagonist muscle coactivation was significantly lower (from 22.1% ± 9.4 and 10.7% ± 3.7 at 30°/s to 22.4% ± 9.7 and 10.6% ± 2.5 at 180°/s for non-players and badminton players group, respectively), and PSI in beta frequency band was significantly higher (from 0.42 ± 0.06 and 0.47 ± 0.15 at 30°/s to 0.35 ± 0.12 and 0.49 ± 0.14 at 180°/s) in the badminton player group compared with the non-player group during isokinetic ankle dorsiflexion contraction. No significant difference was found in antagonist muscle coactivation and PSI between two group subjects during ankle plantar flexion. The decrease of antagonist coactivation may indicate an optimal motor control style to increase the contraction efficiency, while the increase coupling of antagonistic muscles may help to ensure joint stability to compensate for the decrease of antagonist coactivation.

Graphical abstract

Significant difference of observed indexes between non-players and badminton players.

Keywords

Antagonist muscle Coactivation EMG Ankle joint Isokinetic exercise Badminton players 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, the Research and Construction Project of Teaching Reform in Tongji University, and the Twelfth Experimental Teaching Reform Project of Tongji University.

References

  1. 1.
    Aagaard P, Simonsen EB, Andersen JL, Magnusson SP, Bojsen-Moller F, Dyhre-Poulsen P (2000) Antagonist muscle coactivation during isokinetic knee extension. Scand J Med Sci Sports 10:58–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abian P, Castanedo A, Feng XQ, Sampedro J, Abian-Vicen J (2014) Notational comparison of men’s singles badminton matches between Olympic Games in Beijing and London. Int J Perform Anal Sport 14:42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abian P, Del Coso J, Jose Salinero J, Gallo-Salazar C, Areces F, Ruiz-Vicente D, Lara B, Soriano L, Munoz V, Lorenzo-Capella I, Abian-Vicen J (2016) Muscle damage produced during a simulated badminton match in competitive male players. Res Sports Med 24:104–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andersen LL, Larsson B, Overgaard H, Aagaard P (2007) Torque-velocity characteristics and contractile rate of force development in elite badminton players. Eur J Sport Sci 7:127–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker SN, Olivier E, Lemon RN (1997) Coherent oscillations in monkey motor cortex and hand muscle EMG show task-dependent modulation. J Physiol 501:225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bazzucchi I, Sbriccoli P, Marzattinocci G, Francesco Felici MD (2006) Coactivation of the elbow antagonist muscles is not affected by the speed of movement in isokinetic exercise. Muscle Nerve 33:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bazzucchi I, Riccio ME, Felici F (2008) Tennis players show a lower coactivation of the elbow antagonist muscles during isokinetic exercises. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18:752–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boonstra TW, Breakspear M (2012) Neural mechanisms of intermuscular coherence: implications for the rectification of surface electromyography. J Neurophysiol 107:796–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carolan B, Cafarelli E (1992) Adaptations in coactivation after isometric resistance training. J Appl Physiol 73:911–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang Y, Chou C, Chan H, Hsu M, Yeh M, Fang C, Chuang Y, Wei S, Lien H (2012) Increases of quadriceps inter-muscular cross-correlation and coherence during exhausting stepping exercise. Sensors 12:16353–16367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dal Maso F, Longcamp M, Amarantini D (2012) Training-related decrease in antagonist muscles activation is associated with increased motor cortex activation: evidence of central mechanisms for control of antagonist muscles. Exp Brain Res 220:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Luca CJ, Erim Z (2002) Common drive in motor units of a synergistic muscle pair. J Neurophysiol 87:2200–2204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Luca CJ, Mambrito B (1987) Voluntary control of motor units in human antagonist muscles: coactivation and reciprocal activation. J Neurophysiol 58:525–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Luca CJ, Gilmore LD, Kuznetsov M, Roy SH (2010) Filtering the surface EMG signal: movement artifact and baseline noise contamination. J Biomech 43:1573–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Luca CJ, Kuznetsov M, Gilmore LD, Roy SH (2012) Inter-electrode spacing of surface EMG sensors: reduction of crosstalk contamination during voluntary contractions. J Biomech 45:555–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duchateau J, Baudry S (2014) The neural control of coactivation during fatiguing contractions revisited. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 24:780–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Farina D, Merletti R, Indino B, Graven-Nielsen T (2004) Surface EMG crosstalk evaluated from experimental recordings and simulated signals - reflections on crosstalk interpretation, quantification and reduction. Methods Inf Med 43:30–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Farina D, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2014) The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG: an update. J Appl Physiol 117:1215–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gribble PL, Mullin LI, Cothros N, Mattar A (2003) Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy. J Neurophysiol 89:2396–2405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    He H, Kiguchi K, Horikawa E (2007) A study on lower-limb muscle activities during daily lower-limb motions. Int J Bioelectromagn 9:79–84Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jaskolska A, Katarzyna K, Brzenczek-Owczarzak W, Yue GH, Jaskolski A (2006) EMG and MMG of agonist and antagonist muscles as a function of age and joint angle. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 16:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kattla S, Lowery MM (2010) Fatigue related changes in electromyographic coherence between synergistic hand muscles. Exp Brain Res 202:89–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lanza MB, Balshaw TG, Folland JP (2017) Do changes in neuromuscular activation contribute to the knee extensor angle-torque relationship? Exp Physiol 102:962–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Levenez M, Garland SJ, Klass M, Duchateau J (2008) Cortical and spinal modulation of antagonist coactivation during a submaximal fatiguing contraction in humans. J Neurophysiol 99:554–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowery MM, Stoykov NS, Kuiken TA (2003) A simulation study to examine the use of cross-correlation as an estimate of surface EMG cross talk. J Appl Physiol 94:1324–1334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mengarelli A, Maranesi E, Burattini L, Fioretti S, Di Nardo F (2017) Co-contraction activity of ankle muscles during walking: a gender comparison. Biomed Signal Process Control 33:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mima T, Steger J, Schulman AE, Gerloff C, Hallett M (2000) Electroencephalographic measurement of motor cortex control of muscle activity in humans. Clin Neurophysiol 111:326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Murthy VN, Fetz EE (1994) Effects of input synchrony on the firing rate of a 3-conductance cortical neuron model. Neural Comput 6:1111–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neptune RR, Kautz SA, Hull ML (1997) The effect of pedaling rate on coordination in cycling. J Biomech 30:1051–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Osu R, Franklin DW, Kato H, Gomi H, Domen K, Yoshioka T, Kawato M (2002) Short- and long-term changes in joint co-contraction associated with motor learning as revealed from surface EMG. J Neurophysiol 88:991–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pizzamiglio S, De Lillo M, Naeem U, Abdalla H, Turner DL (2017) High-frequency intermuscular coherence between arm muscles during robot-mediated motor adapta. Front Physiol:7Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quian Quiroga R, Kraskov A, Kreuz T, Grassberger P (2002) Performance of different synchronization measures in real data: a case study on electroencephalographic signals. Phys Rev E 65:41903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ruedl G, Webhofer M, Helle K, Strobl M, Schranz A, Fink C, Gatterer H, Burtscher M (2012) Leg dominance is a risk factor for noncontact anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female recreational skiers. Am J Sports Med 40:1269–1273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stock MS, Thompson BJ (2014) Sex comparisons of strength and coactivation following ten weeks of deadlift training. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact 14:387–397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ushiyama J, Katsu M, Masakado Y, Kimura A, Liu M, Ushiba J (2011) Muscle fatigue-induced enhancement of corticomuscular coherence following sustained submaximal isometric contraction of the tibialis anterior muscle. J Appl Physiol 110:1233–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Asseldonk EH, Campfens SF, Verwer SJ, van Putten MJ, Stegeman DF (2014) Reliability and agreement of intramuscular coherence in tibialis anterior muscle. PLoS One 9:e88428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Walker S, Avela J, Wikgren J, Meeusen R, Piitulainen H, Baker SN, Parviainen TM (2019) Aging and strength training influence knee extensor intermuscular coherence during low- and high-force isometric contractions. Front Physiol 9Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang L, Lu A, Zhang S, Niu W, Zheng F, Gong M (2015) Fatigue-related electromyographic coherence and phase synchronization analysis between antagonistic elbow muscles. Exp Brain Res 233:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wu R, Delahunt E, Ditroilo M, Lowery MM, De Vito G (2017) Effect of knee joint angle and contraction intensity on hamstrings coactivation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 49:1668–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sport and Health Research Center, Physical Education DepartmentTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Yangzhi Rehabilitation HospitalTongji University School of MedicineShanghaiChina
  3. 3.School of KinesiologyShanghai University of SportShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Department of Health & KinesiologyGeorgia Southern UniversityStatesboroUSA

Personalised recommendations