Influence of passive muscle tension on electromechanical delay in humans.

• Main Authors: Lilian Lacourpaille, François Hug, Antoine Nordez
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23308153/pdf/?tool=EBI

<h4>Background</h4>Electromechanical delay is the time lag between onsets of muscle activation and muscle force production and reflects both electro-chemical processes and mechanical processes. The aims of the present study were two-fold: to experimentally determine the slack length of each head of the biceps brachii using elastography and to determine the influence of the length of biceps brachii on electromechanical delay and its electro-chemical/mechanical processes using very high frame rate ultrasound.<h4>Methods/results</h4>First, 12 participants performed two passive stretches to evaluate the change in passive tension for each head of the biceps brachii. Then, they underwent two electrically evoked contractions from 120 to 20° of elbow flexion (0°: full extension), with the echographic probe maintained over the muscle belly and the myotendinous junction of biceps brachii. The slack length was found to occur at 95.5 ± 6.3° and 95.3 ± 8.2° of the elbow joint angle for the long and short heads of the biceps brachii, respectively. The electromechanical delay was significantly longer at 120° (16.9 ± 3.1 ms; p<0.001), 110° (15.0 ± 3.1 ms; p<0.001) and 100° (12.7 ± 2.5 ms; p = 0.01) of elbow joint angle compared to 90° (11.1 ± 1.7 ms). However, the delay between the onset of electrical stimulation and the onset of both muscle fascicles (3.9 ± 0.2 ms) and myotendinous junction (3.7 ± 0.3 ms) motion was not significantly affected by the joint angle (p>0.95).<h4>Conclusion</h4>In contrast to previous observations on gastrocnemius medialis, the onset of muscle motion and the onset of myotendinous junction motion occurred simultaneously regardless of the length of the biceps brachii. That suggests that the between-muscles differences reported in the literature cannot be explained by different muscle passive tension but instead may be attributable to muscle architectural differences.