Search

According to the modular hypothesis for the control of movement, muscles are recruited in synergies, which capture muscle coordination in space, time, or both. In the last two decades, muscle synergy analysis has become a well-established framework in the motor control field and for the characterization of motor impairments in neurological patients. Altered modular control during a locomotion task has been often proposed as a potential quantitative metric for characterizing pathological conditions. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to analyze the recent literature that used a muscle synergy analysis of neurological patients' locomotion as an indicator of motor rehabilitation therapy effectiveness, encompassing the key methodological elements to date. Searches for the relevant literature were made in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus. Most of the 15 full-text articles which were retrieved and included in this review identified an effect of the rehabilitation intervention on muscle synergies. However, the used experimental and methodological approaches varied across studies. Despite the scarcity of studies that investigated the effect of rehabilitation on muscle synergies, this review supports the utility of muscle synergies as a marker of the effectiveness of rehabilitative therapy and highlights the challenges and open issues that future works need to address to introduce the muscle synergies in the clinical practice and decisional process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Different motor units (MUs) in the biceps brachii (BB) muscle have been shown to be preferentially recruited during either elbow flexion or supination. Whether these different units reside within different regions is an open issue. In this study, we tested wheter MUs recruited during submaximal isometric tasks of elbow flexion and supination for two contraction levels and with the wrist fixed at two different angles are spatially localized in different BB portions.Methods: The MUs' firing instants were extracted by decomposing high-density surface electromyograms (EMG), detected from the BB muscle of 12 subjects with a grid of electrodes (4 rows along the BB longitudinal axis, 16 columns medio-laterally). The firing instants were then used to trigger and average single-differential EMGs. The average rectified value was computed separately for each signal and the maximal value along each column in the grid was retained. The center of mass, defined as the weighted mean of the maximal, average rectified value across columns, was then consdiered to assess the medio-lateral changes in the MU surface representation between conditions.Results: Contraction level, but neither wrist position nor force direction (flexion vs. supination), affected the spatial distribution of BB MUs. In particular, higher forces were associated with the recruitment of BB MUs whose action potentials were represented more medially.Conclusion: Although the action potentials of BB MUs were represented locally across the muscle medio-lateral region, dicrimination between elbow flexion or supination seems unlikely from the surface representation of MUs action potentials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manipulative actions involving unstable interactions with the environment require controlling mechanical impedance through muscle co-contraction. While much research has focused on how the central nervous system (CNS) selects the muscle patterns underlying a desired movement or end-point force, the coordination strategies used to achieve a desired end-point impedance have received considerably less attention. We recorded isometric forces at the hand and electromyographic (EMG) signals in subjects performing a reaching task with an external disturbance. In a virtual environment, subjects displaced a cursor by applying isometric forces and were instructed to reach targets in 20 spatial locations. The motion of the cursor was then perturbed by disturbances whose effects could be attenuated by increasing co-contraction. All subjects could voluntarily modulate co-contraction when disturbances of different magnitudes were applied. For most muscles, activation was modulated by target direction according to a cosine tuning function with an offset and an amplitude increasing with disturbance magnitude. Co-contraction was characterized by projecting the muscle activation vector onto the null space of the EMG-to-force mapping. Even in the baseline the magnitude of the null space projection was larger than the minimum magnitude required for non-negative muscle activations. Moreover, the increase in co-contraction was not obtained by scaling the baseline null space projection, scaling the difference between the null space projections in any block and the projection of the non-negative minimum-norm muscle vector, or scaling the difference between the null space projections in the perturbed blocks and the baseline null space projection. However, the null space projections in the perturbed blocks were obtained by linear combination of the baseline null space projection and the muscle activation used to increase co-contraction without generating any force. The failure of scaling rules in explaining voluntary modulation of arm co-contraction suggests that muscle pattern generation may be constrained by muscle synergies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]