Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Parameters on Torque, Fatigue, and Oxygen Extraction (NMES)
Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation: Comparison of Carrier Frequencies, Bursts Durations and Duty Cycles in the Generation of Evoked Torque, Sensory Discomfort, Muscle Fatigue and Peripheral Oxygen Extraction
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: João Durigan, PhD
- Phone Number: 55 61 3107-8450
- Email: joaodurigan@gmail.com
Study Contact Backup
- Name: Rita Durigan, PhD
- Phone Number: 55 61 3107-8450
- Email: marqueti@gmail.com
Study Locations
-
-
Brasil
-
Brasília, Brasil, Brazil, 72220900
- João Luiz Q. Durigan
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Female and male, aged between 18-40 years,
- Be classified as physically active according to the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ),
- The practice of just recreational physical activity,
- Achieve a minimum torque of 20% of the MVIC during the NMES
- Be at least three months without strength training
Exclusion Criteria:
- Present musculoskeletal dysfunction that may interfere with the tests, present intolerance to NMES in the triceps surae muscle,
- Use analgesics, antidepressants, tranquilizers, or other centrally acting agents
- Present cardiovascular or peripheral vascular problems, chronic diseases, neurological or muscle disorders that may impair the complete execution of the study design by the volunteer
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Other
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
- Masking: Double
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Experimental: Russian current 10%
Subjects will receive a interventions (Russian Current at 10% duty cycle).
Evoked torque, muscle fatigue, sensory discomfort, and peripheral oxygen extraction will be evaluated.
|
Russian current with 2500 Hz, modulated in bursts of 50 Hz, 200 µs and 10% duty cycle - 2 ms bursts and 18 ms interbusrts
|
|
Experimental: Russian current 20%
Subjects will receive a interventions (Russian Current at 20% duty cycle).
Evoked torque, muscle fatigue, sensory discomfort, and peripheral oxygen extraction will be evaluated.
|
Russian current with 2500 Hz, modulated in bursts of 50 Hz, 200 µs and 20% duty cycle - 4 ms bursts and 16 ms interbusrts
|
|
Experimental: Aussie current 10%
Subjects will receive a interventions (Aussie Current at 10% duty cycle).
Evoked torque, muscle fatigue, sensory discomfort, and peripheral oxygen extraction will be evaluated.
|
Aussie current with 1000 Hz, modulated in bursts of 50 Hz, 500 µs and 10% duty cycle - 2 ms bursts and 18 ms interbusrts
|
|
Experimental: Aussie current 20%
Subjects will receive a interventions (Aussie Current at 20% duty cycle).
Evoked torque, muscle fatigue, sensory discomfort, and peripheral oxygen extraction will be evaluated.
|
Aussie current with 1000 Hz, modulated in bursts of 50 Hz, 500 µs and 20% duty cycle - 4 ms bursts and 16 ms interbusrts
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Submaximal voluntary isometric contraction of the triceps surae
Time Frame: 2 minutes
|
Expressed in muscle strength, assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer
|
2 minutes
|
|
Maximum voluntary isometric contraction of the triceps surae
Time Frame: 5 minutes
|
Expressed in muscle strength, assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer
|
5 minutes
|
|
Maximum evoked torque
Time Frame: 5 minutes
|
Expressed by the description of muscle strength generated by electrical stimulation assessed by the isokinetic dynamometer
|
5 minutes
|
|
Torque evoked during the fatigue protocol
Time Frame: 20 minutes
|
Expressed by the description of muscle strength generated by electrical stimulation assessed by the isokinetic dynamometer
|
20 minutes
|
|
Peripheral oxygen extraction
Time Frame: 40 minutes
|
Expressed by peripheral oxygen consumption assessed by near-infrared spectroscopy from the beginning to the end of the sessions
|
40 minutes
|
|
Muscle fatigue assessment before the muscle fatigue protocol
Time Frame: 10 minutes
|
Expressed by mechanical properties of plantar flexors and central activation relationship using the contraction interpolation technique
|
10 minutes
|
|
Assessment of muscle fatigue during the muscle fatigue protocol
Time Frame: 20 minutes
|
Expressed by the muscle fatigue index through the decline in torque evoked from the beginning to the end of the protocol
|
20 minutes
|
|
Muscle fatigue assessment during the muscle fatigue protocol
Time Frame: 20 minutes
|
Expressed by the decline in torque-time-integral from the beginning to the end of the protocol
|
20 minutes
|
|
Electromyographic signals
Time Frame: 40 minutes
|
Expressed by the raw values of RMS and Median Frequency within a range of 500 ms throughout the entire session
|
40 minutes
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Sensory discomfort during maximum evoked torques
Time Frame: 10 seconds
|
Measured through the Visual Analog Scale (1 - 10 cm) where 0 represents no discomfort and 10 represents greater discomfort
|
10 seconds
|
|
Sensory discomfort during fatigue protocol
Time Frame: 10 seconds
|
Measured through the Visual Analog Scale (1 - 10 cm) where 0 represents no discomfort and 10 represents greater discomfort
|
10 seconds
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: João Durigan, PhD, University of Brasilia
Publications and helpful links
General Publications
- Vaz MA, Baroni BM, Geremia JM, Lanferdini FJ, Mayer A, Arampatzis A, Herzog W. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) reduces structural and functional losses of quadriceps muscle and improves health status in patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Orthop Res. 2013 Apr;31(4):511-6. doi: 10.1002/jor.22264. Epub 2012 Nov 8.
- Dantas LO, Vieira A, Siqueira AL Jr, Salvini TF, Durigan JL. Comparison between the effects of 4 different electrical stimulation current waveforms on isometric knee extension torque and perceived discomfort in healthy women. Muscle Nerve. 2015 Jan;51(1):76-82. doi: 10.1002/mus.24280.
- Botter A, Oprandi G, Lanfranco F, Allasia S, Maffiuletti NA, Minetto MA. Atlas of the muscle motor points for the lower limb: implications for electrical stimulation procedures and electrode positioning. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Oct;111(10):2461-71. doi: 10.1007/s00421-011-2093-y. Epub 2011 Jul 28.
- Baldi JC, Jackson RD, Moraille R, Mysiw WJ. Muscle atrophy is prevented in patients with acute spinal cord injury using functional electrical stimulation. Spinal Cord. 1998 Jul;36(7):463-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.sc.3100679.
- Delitto A, Strube MJ, Shulman AD, Minor SD. A study of discomfort with electrical stimulation. Phys Ther. 1992 Jun;72(6):410-21; discussion on 421-4. doi: 10.1093/ptj/72.6.410.
- McLoda TA, Carmack JA. Optimal burst duration during a facilitated quadriceps femoris contraction. J Athl Train. 2000 Apr;35(2):145-50.
- Liebano RE, Waszczuk S Jr, Correa JB. The effect of burst-duty-cycle parameters of medium-frequency alternating current on maximum electrically induced torque of the quadriceps femoris, discomfort, and tolerated current amplitude in professional soccer players. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013 Dec;43(12):920-6. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2013.4656. Epub 2013 Oct 30.
- Vanderthommen M, Duteil S, Wary C, Raynaud JS, Leroy-Willig A, Crielaard JM, Carlier PG. A comparison of voluntary and electrically induced contractions by interleaved 1H- and 31P-NMRS in humans. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2003 Mar;94(3):1012-24. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00887.2001. Epub 2002 Nov 27.
- Paz IA, Rigo GT, Sgarioni A, Baroni BM, Frasson VB, Vaz MA. Alternating Current Is More Fatigable Than Pulsed Current in People Who Are Healthy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Crossover Trial. Phys Ther. 2021 Jun 1;101(6):pzab056. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzab056.
- Arpin DJ, Forrest G, Harkema SJ, Rejc E. Submaximal Marker for Investigating Peak Muscle Torque Using Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation after Paralysis. J Neurotrauma. 2019 Mar 19;36(6):930-936. doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.5848. Epub 2018 Nov 16.
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- 47989121.6.0000.8093
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.