English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Adaptive Force (AF) reflects the capability of the neuromuscular system to adapt adequately to external forces with the intention of maintaining a position or motion. One specific approach to assessing AF is to measure force and limb position during a pneumatically applied increasing external force. Through this method, the highest (AF max ), the maximal isometric (AFiso max ) and the maximal eccentric Adaptive Force (AFecc max ) can be determined. The main question of the study was whether the AFiso max is a specific and independent parameter of muscle function compared to other maximal forces. In 13 healthy subjects (9 male and 4 female), the maximal voluntary isometric contraction (pre- and post-MVIC), the three AF parameters and the MVIC with a prior concentric contraction (MVICpri-con) of the elbow extensors were measured 4 times on two days. Arithmetic mean (M) and maximal (Max) torques of all force types were analyzed. Regarding the reliability of the AF parameters between days, the mean changes were 0.31-1.98 Nm (0.61%-5.47%, p = 0.175-0.552), the standard errors of measurements (SEM) were 1.29-5.68 Nm (2.53%-15.70%) and the ICCs(3,1) = 0.896-0.996. M and Max of AFiso max , AF max and pre-MVIC correlated highly (r = 0.85-0.98). The M and Max of AFiso max were significantly lower (6.12-14.93 Nm; p ≤ 0.001-0.009) and more variable between trials (coefficient of variation (CVs) ≥ 21.95%) compared to those of pre-MVIC and AF max (CVs ≤ 5.4%). The results suggest the novel measuring procedure is suitable to reliably quantify the AF, whereby the presented measurement errors should be taken into consideration. The AFiso max seems to reflect its own strength capacity and should be detected separately. It is suggested its normalization to the MVIC or AF max could serve as an indicator of a neuromuscular function.

diagnostics

Assessment of the Adaptive Force of Elbow Extensors in Healthy Subjects Quantified by a Novel Pneumatically Driven Measurement System with Considerations of Its Quality Criteria