Magnetic versus electrical stimulation in the interpolation twitch technique of elbow flexors

• Published in: Journal of sports science & medicine Vol. 11; no. 4; pp. 709 - 718
• Main Authors: Lampropoulou, Sofia I, Nowicky, Alexander V, Marston, Louise
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Turkey Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 01-12-2012; Asist Group
• Subjects: Arm; Arm muscles; Elbows; Electric fields; Electrical stimulation; Electromyography; Employment; Evaluation; Force; Magnetic fields; Measurement; Muscle function; Muscles; Muscles (contractions); Neural stimulation; Physiological aspects; Physiological research; Physiology; Primary care; Rest; Stimuli; Techniques; United Kingdom > UK; Electrical stimulation; elbow flexors; magnetic stimulation; interpolation twitch technique; voluntary activation
• ISSN: 1303-2968; 1303-2968

The study compared peripheral magnetic with electrical stimulation of the biceps brachii m. (BB) in the single pulse Interpolation Twitch Technique (ITT). 14 healthy participants (31±7 years) participated in a within-subjects repeated-measures design study. Single, constant-current electrical and magnetic stimuli were delivered over the motor point of BB with supramaximal intensity (20% above maximum) at rest and at various levels of voluntary contraction. Force measurements from right elbow isometric flexion and muscle electromyograms (EMG) from the BB, the triceps brachii m. (TB) and the abductor pollicis brevis m. (APB) were obtained. The twitch forces at rest and maximal contractions, the twitch force-voluntary force relationship, the M-waves and the voluntary activation (VA) of BB between magnetic and electrical stimulation were compared. The mean amplitude of the twitches evoked at MVC was not significantly different between electrical (0.62 ± 0.49 N) and magnetic (0.81 ± 0.49 N) stimulation (p > 0.05), and the maximum VA of BB was comparable between electrical (95%) and magnetic (93%) stimulation (p > 0. 05). No differences (p >0.05) were revealed in the BB M-waves between electrical (13.47 ± 0.49 mV.ms) and magnetic (12.61 ± 0.58 mV.ms) stimulation. The TB M-waves were also similar (p > 0.05) but electrically evoked APB M-waves were significantly larger than those evoked by magnetic stimulation (p < 0.05). The twitch-voluntary force relationship over the range of MVCs was best described by non-linear functions for both electrical and magnetic stimulation. The electrically evoked resting twitches were consistently larger in amplitude than the magnetically evoked ones (mean difference 3.1 ± 3.34 N, p < 0.05). Reduction of the inter-electrodes distance reduced the twitch amplitude by 6.5 ± 6.2 N (p < 0.05). The fundamental similarities in voluntary activation assessment of BB with peripheral electrical and magnetic stimulation point towards a promising new application of peripheral magnetic stimulation as an alternative to the conventional ITT for the assessment of BB voluntary activation.