, 42:419 | Cite as

Activation of the Shoulder Belt and Shoulder Muscles of Humans Related to Different Rates of Generation of Two-Joint Efforts by the Forearm

  • I. V. Vereshchaka

We studied coordination of central motor commands (CMCs) coming to the muscles that flex and extend the shoulder and elbow joints in the course of generation of voluntary isometric efforts of different directions by the forearm. Dependences of the characteristics of these commands on the direction of the effort and rate of its generation were analyzed. Amplitudes of rectified and averaged EMGs recorded from a number of shoulder belt and shoulder muscles were considered correlates of the CMC intensity. The development of the effort of a given direction and rate of rise was realized in the horizontal-plane operational space; the arm position corresponded to the 30 deg angle in the shoulder joint (external angle with respect to the frontal plane) and 90 deg angle in the elbow joint. We plotted sector diagrams of the relative changes in the level of dynamic and stationary phases of EMG activity of the studied muscles for the entire set of directions of the efforts generated with different rates of rise. In the course of formation of rapid two-joint isometric efforts, realization of nonsynergic motor tasks (extension of one joint and flexion of another one, and vice versa) required significant activation of muscles of different functional directions for both joints. Time organization of EMG activity of extensors and flexors of the shoulder and elbow joints related to the maximum and relatively rapid generation of the effort (rise time 0.12 to 0.13 and 0.25 sec, respectively) was rather complex and included dynamic and stationary phases. With these time parameters of generation of the efforts (both flexion and extension), the appearance at the stationary effort of 40 N was controlled based on coordinated interaction of dynamic phases of the activation of agonistic and antagonistic muscles. It is concluded that CMCs coming to extensors and flexors of both joints upon generation of rapid isometric efforts are rather similar in their parameters to those under conditions of realization of the forearm movements in the space in an isotonic mode.


two-joint isometric effort shoulder and shoulder belt muscles three-volley pattern maximally rapid isometric effort logarithmic coefficient of the EMG intensity increment coactivation 


  1. 1.
    I. V. Vereshchaka, A. V. Gorkovenko, V. I. Khorevin, et al., “Peculiarities of activation of the shoulder belt and shoulder muscles in generation of different-direction isometric efforts by the forearm,” Neurophysiology, 42, No. 4, 265–275 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. A. Vasilenko, B. Ya. Pyatigorskii, A. É. Ivanov, and D. D. Vasilenko, “The targeted force steps developed by a human wrist: Cyclic components in the motor program,” Neurophysiology, 1(25), No. 6, 378–383 (1993).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Chez and J. Gordon, “Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. I. Role of opposing muscles,” Exp. Brain Res., 67, No. 2, 225–240 (1987).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. A. Mussa-Ivaldi, N. Hogan, and E. Bizzi, “Neural, mechanical, and geometric factors subserving arm posture in humans,” J. Neurosci., 5, 2732–2743 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Cutsem and J. Duchateau, “Preceding muscle activity influences motor unit discharge and rate of torque development during ballistic contraction in humans,” J. Physiol., 256, No. 2, 635–644 (2005).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Salonikidis, I. G. Armiridis, N. Oxyzoglou, et al., “Force variability during isometric wrist flexion in highly skilled and sedentary individuals,” Eur. J. Apl. Physiol., 107, 715–722 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Gordon and C. Ghez, “Trajectory control in targeted force impulses. II. Pulse height control,” Exp. Brain Res., 67, No. 2, 241–252 (1987).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    E. J. Nijhofa and D. A. Gabriel, “Maximum isometric arm forces in the horizontal plane,” J. Biomechan., 39, 708-716 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    N. Wrbaskic and J. Dowling, “The relationship between strength, power and ballistic performance,” J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol., 92, 12–22 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Pan, A. Michael, J. Peshkin, et al., “Static singlearm force generation with kinematic constraints,” J. Neurophysiol., 93, 2752–2765 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Osu and H. Gomi, “Multijoint muscle regulation mechanisms examined by measured human arm stiffness and EMG signals,” J. Neurophysiol., 81, 1458–1468 (1999).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    A. N. Tal’nov, A. G. Serenko, V. L. Cherkasskii, and S. S. Strafun, “Coordination of the dynamic phases of EMG activity in human elbow flexors in the performance of targeted tracking movements,” Neurophysiology, 30, No. 3, 168–178 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. L. Gottlibe, D. M. Corcos, G. C. Agarwal, and M. L. Latash, “Organizing principles for single-joint movements. 3. Speed-insensitive strategy as a default,” J. Neurophysiol., 63, 625–626 (1990).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. L. Gottlibe, M. L. Latash, D. M. Corcos, et al., “Organizing principles for single-joint movements. 5. Agonist-antagonist interaction,” J. Neurophysiol., 67, 1417–1427 (1992).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. M. Corcos, G. L. Gottlibe, and G. C. Agarwal, “Organizing principles for single-joint movements. 2. A speed-sensitive strategy,” J. Neurophysiol., 62, 358–368 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. P. Vorob’yev and R. D. Sinel’nikov, Atlas of Anatomy of Humans [in Russian], Medgiz, Moscow, Leningrad (1948).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. V. Gorkovenko, A. N. Tal’nov, V. V. Korneev, and A. I. Kostyukov, “Peculiarities of activation of muscles of the shoulder belt in voluntary two-joint movements of the upper limb,” Neurophysiology, 41, No. 1, 43–50 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. I. Kostyukov, A. I. Tal’nov, S. G. Serenko, etc., “Control of the elbow extensor muscles in slow targeted extensions of the arm in humans,” Neurophysiology, 33, No. 1, 53–62 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. M. Tax, J. J. Dinier, C. M. Gielen, and M. Kleyne, “Differences in central control of m. biceps brachii in movement tasks and force tasks,” Exp. Brain Res., 79, 138–142 (1990).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    T. Yanagawa, C. J. Goodwin, K. B. Shelburne, et al., “Contributions of the individual muscles of the shoulder to glenohumeral joint stability during abduction,” J. Biomechan., 130, No. 4, 283–390 (2008).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. R. Boland and T. Spigelman, “The function of brachioradialis,” J. Hand. Surg., 33, No. 10, 1853–1859 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bogomolets Institute of PhysiologyNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineKyivUkraine

Personalised recommendations