Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The type of visual biofeedback influences maximal handgrip strength and activation strategies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Applied Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated the effects of force and electromyographic (EMG) feedbacks on forearm muscle activations and handgrip maximal isometric voluntary contraction (MIVC).

Methods

Sixteen males performed a set of MIVC in four different feedback conditions: (1) NO-FB: no feedback is given to the participant; (2) FORCE-FB: participants received a visual feedback of the produced force; (3) AGO-FB: participants received a visual feedback of the EMG activity of two agonist grip muscles; (4) ANTAGO-FB: participants received a visual feedback of the EMG activity of two hand extensors muscles. Each feedback was displayed by monitoring the signal of either force or electrical activity of the corresponding muscles.

Results

Compared to NO-FB, FORCE-FB was associated with a higher MIVC force (+ 11%, P < 0.05), a higher EMG activity of agonist and antagonist muscles (+ 8.7% and + 9.2%, respectively, P < 0.05) and a better MIVC/EMG ratio with the agonist muscles (P < 0.05). AGO-FB was associated with a higher EMG activity of agonist muscles (P < 0.05) and ANTAGO-FB was associated with a higher EMG activity of antagonist muscles (P < 0.05). MIVC force was higher in the agonist feedback condition than in the antagonist feedback condition (+ 5.9%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our results showed that the MIVC force can be influenced by different visuals feedback, such as force or EMG feedbacks. Moreover, these results suggested that the type of feedback employed could modify the EMG-to-force relationships. Finally, EMG biofeedback could represent an interesting tool to optimize motor strategies. But in the purpose of performing the highest strength independently of the strategy, the force feedback should be recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AGO FB:

Agonist muscles feedback condition

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

ANTAGO FB:

Antagonist muscles feedback condition

EDS:

Extensor digitori superficialis

EDU:

Extensor digitori ulnaris

EMG:

Electromyography

FDS:

Flexor digitorum superficialis

FORCE FB:

Force feedback condition

MIVC:

Maximal isometric voluntary contractions

NO FB:

No feedback condition

PL:

Palmaris Longus

RMS:

Root mean square

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  • Ambike S, Paclet F, Zatsiorsky VM, Latash ML (2014) Factors affecting grip force: anatomy, mechanics, and referent configurations. Exp brain Res 232:1219–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athreya DN, Van Orden G, Riley MA (2012) Feedback about isometric force production yields more random variations. Neurosci Lett 513:37–41

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baweja HS, Patel BK, Martinkewiz JD et al (2009) Removal of visual feedback alters muscle activity and reduces force variability during constant isometric contractions. Exp Brain Res 197:35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1883-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Berger RA (1967) Effects of knowledge of isometric strength during performance on recorded strength. Res Q Am Assoc Heal Phys Educ Recreat 38:507

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigland-Ritchie B (1981) EMG/force relations and fatigue of human voluntary contractions. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 9:75–117. https://doi.org/10.1249/00003677-198101000-00002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campenella B, Mattacola CG, Kimura IF (2000) Effect of visual feedback and verbal encouragement on concentric quadriceps and hamstrings peak torque of males and females. Isokinet Exerc Sci 8:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin DB, Andersson GBJ, Martin BJ (2006) Occupational biomechanics. Wiley, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Christou EA (2005) Visual feedback attenuates force fluctuations induced by a stressor. Med Sci Sport Exerc 37:2126–2133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosen S, Markovic M, Somer K et al (2015) EMG Biofeedback for online predictive control of grasping force in a myoelectric prosthesis. J Neuroeng Rehabil. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12984-015-0047-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Draper V (1990) Electromyographic biofeedback and recovery of quadriceps femoris muscle function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Phys Ther 70:11–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ekblom MM, Eriksson M (2012) Concurrent EMG feedback acutely improves strength and muscle activation. Eur J Appl Physiol 112:1899–1905

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Farina D, Merletti R, Enoka RM (2004) The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG. J Appl Physiol 96:1486–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina D, Gazzoni M, Camelia F (2005) Conduction velocity of low-threshold motor units during ischemic contractions performed with surface EMG feedback. J Appl Physiol 98:1487–1494. https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01032.2004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gandevia SC (2001) Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiol Rev 81(4):1725–1789

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Hernandez N, Garza-Martinez K, Parra-Vega V (2018) Electromyography biofeedback exergames to enhance grip strength and motivation. Games Health J 7:75–82. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2017.0054

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoozemans MJM, Van Dieën JH (2005) Prediction of handgrip forces using surface EMG of forearm muscles. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 15:358–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2004.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu X, Loncharich M, Newell KM (2011) Visual information interacts with neuromuscular factors in the coordination of bimanual isometric force. Exp brain Res 209:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson CA, Kent BE, Shepard KF (1983) Relationship between verbal command volume and magnitude of muscle contraction. Phys Ther 63:1260–1265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kanemura N, Kobayashi R, Hosoda M et al (1999) Effect of visual feedback on muscle endurance in normal subjects. J Phys Ther Sci 11:25–29. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.11.25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komi PV, Komi PV, Buskirk ER (1972) Effect of eccentric and concentric muscle conditioning on tension and electrical activity of human muscle. Ergonomics 15:417–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137208924444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lauber B, Keller M, Leukel C et al (2016) Force and position control in humans—the role of augmented feedback. J Vis Exp. https://doi.org/10.3791/53291

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt R, Deisinger JA, Wall JR et al (1995) EMG feedback-assisted postoperative rehabilitation of minor arthroscopic knee surgeries. J Sports Med Phys Fit 35:218–223

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Limonta E, Rampichini S, Cè E, Esposito F (2015) Effects of visual feedback absence on force control during isometric contraction. Eur J Appl Physiol 115:507–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-014-3036-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Luc BA, Harkey MH, Arguelles GD et al (2016) Measuring voluntary quadriceps activation: effect of visual feedback and stimulus delivery. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 26:73–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madeleine P, Jørgensen L, Søgaard K et al (2002) Development of muscle fatigue as assessed by electromyography and mechanomyography during continuous and intermittent low-force contractions: effects of the feedback mode. Eur J Appl Physiol 87:28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNair PJ, Depledge J, Brettkelly M, Stanley SN (1996) Verbal encouragement: effects on maximum effort voluntary muscle: action. Br J Sports Med 30:243–245

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miall RC, Weir DJ, Stein JF (1993) Intermittency in human manual tracking tasks. J Mot Behav 25:53–63

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moritani T, DeVries HA (1978) Reexamination of the relationship between the surface integrated electromyogram (IEMG) and force of isometric contraction. Am J Phys Med 57:263–277

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak DA, Glasauer S, Hermsdörfer J (2003) Grip force efficiency in long-term deprivation of somatosensory feedback. NeuroReport 14:1803–1807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 9:97–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perotto AO (2011) Anatomical guide for the electromyographer: the limbs and trunk. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson WR, Rasch PJ (1964) Effect of knowledge of results on isometric strength scores. Res Q Am Assoc Heal Phys Educ Recreat 35:313–315

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Place N, Martin A, Lepers R (2006) Changes in neuromuscular function after tasks involving control of EMG versus torque feedback of the same duration. Neurosci Lett 394:37–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2005.10.013

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Place N, Martin A, Ballay Y, Lepers R (2007) Neuromuscular fatigue differs with biofeedback type when performing a submaximal contraction. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 17:253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.04.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slifkin AB, Vaillancourt DE, Newell KM (2000) Intermittency in the control of continuous force production. J Neurophysiol 84:1708–1718

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smets MPH, Potvin JR, Keir PJ (2009) Constrained handgrip force decreases upper extremity muscle activation and arm strength. Ergonomics 52:1144–1152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130902919113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sosnoff JJ, Newell KM (2006) Information processing limitations with aging in the visual scaling of isometric force. Exp Brain Res 170:423–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosnoff JJ, Newell KM (2007) Are visual feedback delays responsible for aging-related increases in force variability? Exp Aging Res 33:399–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki H, Conwit RA, Stashuk D et al (2002) Relationships between surface-detected EMG signals and motor unit activation. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34:1509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor JL (2009) Point: Counterpoint: the interpolated twitch does/does not provide a valid measure of the voluntary activation of muscle. J Appl Physiol 107:354–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toumi A, Jakobi JM, Simoneau-Buessinger E (2016) Differential impact of visual feedback on plantar- and dorsi-flexion maximal torque output. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 41:557–559. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vaillancourt DE, Mayka MA, Corcos DM (2006) Intermittent visuomotor processing in the human cerebellum, parietal cortex, and premotor cortex. J Neurophysiol 95:922–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wearing J, Konings P, Stokes M, de Bruin ED (2018) Handgrip strength in old and oldest old Swiss adults—a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatr 18(1):266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods JJ, Bigland Ritchie B (1983) Linear and non-linear surface EMG/force relationships in human muscles. An anatomical/functional argument for the existence of both. Am J Phys Med 62:287–299

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EA4660, C3S Laboratory, UPFR Sports, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 31, Chemin de l’Epitaphe, 25000, Besançon, France

    Philémon Marcel-Millet, Philippe Gimenez, Alain Groslambert, Gilles Ravier & Sidney Grospretre

Authors
  1. Philémon Marcel-Millet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Gimenez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alain Groslambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gilles Ravier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sidney Grospretre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SG designed the study, conducted experimentations and analysed the data. SG and PMM wrote the manuscript. PG, AG and GR revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sidney Grospretre.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors declare that the results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The research plan was examined and approved by the local ethical committee.

Consent to participate

Prior to testing, all participants gave a voluntary written informed consent which indicated the purpose, the benefits and the risks of the investigation and the possibility stopping their participation at any time.

Additional information

Communicated by Lori Ann Vallis.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marcel-Millet, P., Gimenez, P., Groslambert, A. et al. The type of visual biofeedback influences maximal handgrip strength and activation strategies. Eur J Appl Physiol 121, 1607–1616 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04640-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-021-04640-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation