Diabetic subjects completed a series of rapid, goal-directed arm movements under two conditions of unexpected external loading. Evaluation of electromyographic (EMG) patterns revealed that cocontraction and triphasic activity were predominantly associated with inertial and spring loading, respectively. During inertial load responses some EMG patterns indicated a modified cocontraction pattern. Response accuracy was unaffected by type of load but movement time was greater for the inertial load condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BasmajianJ. V. (1967) Muscles alive. (2nd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
2.
BrownJ. M. M.GilleardW. (1991) Transition from slow to ballistic movement: Development of triphasic electromyogram patterns. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 63, 381–386.
3.
HalletM. (1979) Ballistic elbow flexion movements in patients with amyotropic lateral sclerosis. Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 42, 232–237.
4.
SimmonsR. W.RichardsonC (1988) Peripheral regulation of stiffness during arm movements by coactivation of the antagonist muscles. Brain Research, 473, 134–140.
5.
SimmonsR. W.RichardsonC. (1992) Peripheral control of the antagonist muscle during unexpected loaded arm movements. Brain Research, in press.
