Effects of patterned electrical sensory nerve stimulation and static stretching on joint range of motion and passive torque.
Hoffmann-reflex
ankle joint
muscle stiffness
proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation
reciprocal inhibition
stretch tolerance
Journal
Frontiers in neuroscience
ISSN: 1662-4548
Titre abrégé: Front Neurosci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101478481
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
28
07
2023
medline:
7
9
2023
pubmed:
7
9
2023
entrez:
7
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Static stretching and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation stretching techniques can modulate specific neural mechanisms to improve the range of motion. However, the effects of modulation of these neural pathways on changes in the range of motion with static stretching remain unclear. Patterned electrical stimulation of the sensory nerve induces plastic changes in reciprocal Ia inhibition. The present study examined the effects of patterned electrical stimulation and static stretching on a range of motion and passive torque in plantarflexion muscles. The subjects were 14 young men (age 20.8 ± 1.3 years). The effects of patterned electrical stimulation (10 pulses at 100 Hz every 1.5 s) or uniform electrical stimulation (one pulse every 150 ms) to the common peroneal nerve for 20 min on reciprocal Ia inhibition of the Hoffman reflex (H-reflex) were examined. Reciprocal Ia inhibition was evaluated as short-latency suppression of the soleus H-reflex by conditioning stimulation of the common peroneal nerve. Then, the effects of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (patterned electrical stimulation or uniform electrical stimulation) or prolonged resting (without electrical stimulation) and static 3-min stretching on the maximal dorsiflexion angle and passive torque were investigated. The passive ankle dorsiflexion test was performed on an isokinetic dynamometer. Stretch tolerance and stiffness of the muscle-tendon unit were evaluated by the peak and slope of passive torques, respectively. Patterned electrical stimulation significantly increased reciprocal Ia inhibition of soleus H-reflex amplitude (9.7 ± 6.1%), but uniform electrical stimulation decreased it significantly (19.5 ± 8.8%). The maximal dorsiflexion angle was significantly changed by patterned electrical stimulation (4.0 ± 1.4°), uniform electrical stimulation (3.8 ± 2.3°), and stretching without electrical stimulation (2.1 ± 3.3°). The increase in stretch tolerance was significantly greater after patterned electrical stimulation and uniform electrical stimulation than after stretching without electrical stimulation. Stiffness of the muscle-tendon unit was significantly decreased by patterned electrical stimulation, uniform electrical stimulation, and stretching without electrical stimulation. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and static stretching improve stretch tolerance regardless of the degree of reciprocal Ia inhibition.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37674515
doi: 10.3389/fnins.2023.1205602
pmc: PMC10478221
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1205602Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Saito and Mizuno.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Exp Brain Res. 1989;78(1):28-32
pubmed: 2591515
J Physiol. 1998 Oct 1;512 ( Pt 1):267-76
pubmed: 9729635
Sports Med. 2006;36(11):929-39
pubmed: 17052131
Front Hum Neurosci. 2022 Sep 26;16:994138
pubmed: 36237950
Gait Posture. 2018 Jan;59:134-139
pubmed: 29031138
J Physiol. 2011 Jan 1;589(Pt 1):119-34
pubmed: 21059756
J Strength Cond Res. 2003 Aug;17(3):489-92
pubmed: 12930174
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008 Oct;38(10):632-9
pubmed: 18827325
J Strength Cond Res. 2017 Dec;31(12):3403-3410
pubmed: 27984497
Neuroreport. 2015 Mar 25;26(5):249-53
pubmed: 25719751
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Oct;47(10):2181-90
pubmed: 25668401
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012 Nov;113(9):1446-55
pubmed: 22923509
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2016 Mar;116(3):611-21
pubmed: 26729210
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2006 Oct;34(4):154-8
pubmed: 17031252
Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Sep;122(9):1834-7
pubmed: 21377414
PLoS One. 2019 Apr 4;14(4):e0214818
pubmed: 30947310
Brain. 2000 Mar;123 Pt 3:572-84
pubmed: 10686179
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):41-6
pubmed: 12531755
J Physiol. 1987 Aug;389:163-85
pubmed: 3681725
Phys Ther. 2010 Mar;90(3):438-49
pubmed: 20075147
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1994 Sep;75(9):976-81
pubmed: 8085933
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Oct;111(10):2409-26
pubmed: 21805156
J Neurosci. 2003 Mar 15;23(6):2014-8
pubmed: 12657659
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1989;58(4):353-60
pubmed: 2920713
Int J Sports Med. 2013 Jun;34(6):484-90
pubmed: 23143704
J Neurophysiol. 2003 May;89(5):2339-45
pubmed: 12612033
Sports (Basel). 2023 Jan 04;11(1):
pubmed: 36668714
Eur J Appl Physiol. 2015 Jun;115(6):1263-72
pubmed: 25585964
Neurosci Res. 2017 Jan;114:55-61
pubmed: 27576117
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996 Apr;77(4):373-8
pubmed: 8607762
J Appl Physiol (1985). 1999 Apr;86(4):1283-91
pubmed: 10194214
J Physiol. 1996 Nov 15;497 ( Pt 1):291-8
pubmed: 8951730
J Hum Kinet. 2012 Mar;31:105-13
pubmed: 23487249
Physiother Theory Pract. 2010 May;26(4):240-50
pubmed: 20397858