Advertisement

Sport Sciences for Health

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 623–633 | Cite as

Differences in electromechanical delay components induced by sex, age and physical activity level: new insights from a combined electromyographic, mechanomyographic and force approach

  • Hasan SözenEmail author
  • E. Cè
  • A. V. Bisconti
  • S. Rampichini
  • S. Longo
  • G. Coratella
  • S. Shokohyar
  • C. Doria
  • M. Borrelli
  • E. Limonta
  • F. Esposito
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Electromyographic (EMG), mechanomyographic (MMG) and force (F) signals combined analysis represents an interesting approach to partition the electrochemical and mechanical events contributing to total electromechanical delay, i.e., the time lag existing between the muscle activation and the onset of force generation.

Aim

The study sought to assess the differences in electromechanical delay due to sex, age, and physical activity level.

Methods

Electromechanical components were assessed on vastus lateralis muscle during a maximum voluntary contraction and electrically evoked contractions in 180 participants. During each contraction, the EMG, MMG and F signals were recorded. Electromechanical delays and its two components (Δt EMG-MMG, mainly electrochemical component; and Δt MMG-F, mainly mechanical component) were computed. Measurements’ reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC) and sensitivity (minimum detectable changes at 95% confidence as a percentage, MDC95%) were also calculated.

Results

ICC spanned from 0.89 to 0.97 with a percentage change of the standard error of the measurement (SEM%) ranging from 1.6 to 4.9%. MDC95% values ranged between 3.1 and 9.8%. Longer electromechanical delay values were observed in: (1) women compared to men; (2) 40–45 years old compared to 30–35 years and 20–25 years; and (3) sedentary than active participants. Differences were accompanied by increments in Δt MMG-F but not in Δt EMG-MMG values.

Conclusions

The alterations in the whole electromechanical delay induced by sex, age, and physical activity level could be ascribed to the difference in the duration of the mechanical events included in the electromechanical delay, possibly due to modifications in the muscle–tendon unit characteristics.

Keywords

Maximum voluntary contraction Electrically evoked contraction Electromyography Mechanomyography 

Abbreviations

EMG

Surface electromyographic

MMG

Mechanomyographic signal

Δt

Time latency

Stim

Stimulation current

S

Sedentary

A

Active

M

Men

W

Women

MVC

Maximum voluntary contraction

pT

Peak torque

EMD

Electromechanical delay during voluntary contraction

DelayTOT

Electromechanical delay during electrically evoked contraction

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all the participants involved in the study, for their patience and committed involvement. The study was supported by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) as post-doctoral fellow to Hasan Sözen.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the latest Helsinki Declaration upon receiving necessary approval from Milan University Ethics Committee (CE 27/17 11-07-2017).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cavanagh PR, Komi PV (1979) Electromechanical delay in human skeletal muscle under concentric and eccentric contractions. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 42:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burgess KE, Graham-smith P, Pearson SJ (2009) Effect of acute tensile loading on gender-specific tendon structural and mechanical properties. J Orthop Res 27:510–516.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20768 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kubo K, Kanehisa H, Fukunaga T (2003) Gender differences in the viscoelastic properties of tendon structures. Eur J Appl Physiol 88:520–526.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-002-0744-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yavuz U (2010) Effect of gender, age, fatigue and contraction level on electromechanical delay. Clin Neurophysiol 121:1700–1706.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2009.10.039 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grosset J, Mora I, Lambertz D et al (2005) Age-related changes in twitch properties of plantar flexor muscles in prepubertal children. Pediatr Res 58:966–970.  https://doi.org/10.1203/01.PDR.0000181375.61935.7D CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cè E, Rampichini S, Limonta E, Esposito F (2014) Fatigue effects on the electromechanical delay components during the relaxation phase after isometric contraction. Acta Physiol 211:82–96.  https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cè E, Rampichini S, Venturelli M et al (2015) Electromechanical delay components during relaxation after voluntary contraction: reliability and effects of fatigue. Muscle Nerve 51:907–915.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24466 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Esposito F, Limonta E, Cè E (2011) Passive stretching effects on electromechanical delay and time course of recovery in human skeletal muscle: new insights from an electromyographic and mechanomyographic combined approach. Eur J Appl Physiol 111:485–495.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-010-1659-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Longo S, Cè E, Rampichini S et al (2014) Mechanomyogram amplitude correlates with human gastrocnemius medialis muscle and tendon stiffness both before and after acute passive stretching. Exp Physiol 99:1359–1369.  https://doi.org/10.1113/expphysiol.2014.080366 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Del Vecchio A, Felici F, Sartori M et al (2018) Central nervous system modulates the neuromechanical delay in a broad range for the control of muscle force. J Appl Physiol 125:1404–1410.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00135.2018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esposito F, Cè E, Rampichini S et al (2016) Electromechanical delay components during skeletal muscle contraction and relaxation in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Neuromuscul Disord 26:60–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nmd.2015.09.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Esposito F, Cè E, Rampichini S et al (2017) Electromechanical delays during a fatiguing exercise and recovery in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Eur J Appl Physiol 117:551–566.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3558-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rampichini S, Cè E, Limonta E, Esposito F (2014) Effects of fatigue on the electromechanical delay components in gastrocnemius medialis muscle. Eur J Appl Physiol 114:639–651.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-013-2790-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cè E, Rampichini S, Esposito F (2015) Novel insights into skeletal muscle function by mechanomyography: from the laboratory to the field. Sport Sci Health 11:1–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-015-0219-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Longo S, Cè E, Rampichini S et al (2017) Correlation between stiffness and electromechanical delay components during muscle contraction and relaxation before and after static stretching. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 33:83–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2017.02.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cè E, Rampichini S, Monti E et al (2017) Changes in the electromechanical delay components during a fatiguing stimulation in human skeletal muscle: an EMG, MMG and force combined approach. Eur J Appl Physiol 117:95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-016-3502-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cè E, Rampichini S, Agnello L et al (2013) Effects of temperature and fatigue on the electromechanical delay components. Muscle Nerve 47:566–576.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23627 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Longo S, Devoto M, Monti E et al (2016) Acute effects of static stretching on skeletal muscle relaxation at different ankle joint angles. Sport Sci Health 12:429–436.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-016-0309-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cè E, Longo S, Rampichini S et al (2015) Stretch-induced changes in tension generation process and stiffness are not accompanied by alterations in muscle architecture of the middle and distal portions of the two gastrocnemii. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 25:469–478.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2015.03.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M et al (2003) International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-Country Reliability and Validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:1381–1395.  https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stegeman DF, Hermens HJ (2007) Standards for surface electromyography: the European project “Surface EMG for non-invasive assessment of muscles (SENIAM)”. http://www.med.uni-jena.de/motorik/pdf/stegeman.pdf Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Munro BH (2004) Statistical methods for health care research, 5th edn. Lippincott William and Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gandevia SC (2001) Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. Physiol Rev 81:1725–1789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stackhouse SK, Stevens JE, Lee SC et al (2001) Maximum voluntary activation in nonfatigued and fatigued muscle of young and elderly individuals. Phys Ther 81:1102–1109PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tseng BY, Uh J, Rossetti HC et al (2013) Masters athletes exhibit larger regional brain volume and better cognitive performance than sedentary older adults. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1169–1176.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24085 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burgess KE, Pearson SJ, Breen L (2009) Tendon structural and mechanical properties do not differ between genders in a healthy community-dwelling elderly population. J Orthop Res 27:820–825.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20811 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moore BD, Drouin J, Gansneder BM, Shultz SJ (2002) The differential effects of fatigue on reflex response timing and amplitude in males and females. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 12:351–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hopkins JTY, Feland JB (2007) A comparison of voluntary and involuntary measures of electromechanical delay. Int J Neurosci 117:597–604.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207450600773764 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Blackburn JT, Bell DR, Norcross MF et al (2009) Comparison of hamstring neuromechanical properties between healthy males and females and the influence of musculotendinous stiffness. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 19:e362–e369.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.08.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Winter EM, Brookes FBC (1991) Electromechanical response times and muscle elasticity in men and women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 63:124–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00235181 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Conchola E, Thompson BJ, Smith DB (2013) Effects of neuromuscular fatigue on the electromechanical delay of the leg extensors and flexors in young and old men. Eur J Appl Physiol 113:2391–2399.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-013-2675-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Conchola E, Thiele R, Palmer T et al (2015) Effects of neuromuscular fatigue on electromechanical delay of the leg extensors and flexors in young men and women. Muscle Nerve.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.24598 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Seynnes OR, Erskine RM, Maganaris CN et al (2009) Training-induced changes in structural and mechanical properties of the patellar tendon are related to muscle hypertrophy but not to strength gains. J Appl Physiol 107:523–530.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00213.2009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stock MS, Olinghouse KD, Mota JA et al (2015) Muscle group specific changes in the electromechanical delay following short-term resistance training. J Sci Med Sport 1242:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2015.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Costa PB, Herda TJ, Walter AA et al (2013) Effects of short-term resistance training and subsequent detraining on the electromechanical delay. Muscle Nerve 1000:135–136.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.23756 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ferreira Andrade S, Hunzicker Skiba G, Krueger E, Rodacki A (2016) Electromechanical delay from mechanomyography in long-term strength trained men. J Exerc Phisiology online 19:110–119Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    O’Keeffe D, Lyons G, Donnelly A, Byrne C (2001) Stimulus artifact removal using a software-based two-stage peak detection algorithm. J Neurosci Methods 109:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lacourpaille L, Nordez A, Hug F (2013) Influence of stimulus intensity on electromechanical delay and its mechanisms. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 23:51–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.06.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lacourpaille L, Hug F, Nordez A (2013) Influence of passive muscle tension on electromechanical delay in humans. PLoS One 8:e53159.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053159 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Muraoka T, Muramatsu T, Fukunaga T, Kanehisa H (2004) Influence of tendon slack on electromechanical delay in the human medial gastrocnemius in vivo. J Appl Physiol 96:540–544.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01015.2002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nordez A, Gallot T, Catheline S et al (2009) Electromechanical delay revisited using very high frame rate ultrasound. J Appl Physiol 106:1970–1975.  https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00221.2009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia S.r.l., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physical Education and SportUniversity of OrduOrduTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Sciences for HealthUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.IRCCS, Istituto Ortopedico GaleazziMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations