Fluctuations in isometric muscle force can be described by one linear projection of low‐frequency components of motor unit discharge rates

TLDR

The study examined how linear transformations of motor unit discharge rates relate to muscle force. Eight healthy men performed 60‑second isometric contractions at 5–10% MVC while intramuscular and high‑density surface EMG were recorded, and 222 motor units were extracted via decomposition algorithms. Principal component analysis revealed that a single component (FCC) explained 44–64 % of discharge‑rate variability and correlated with force up to 72 %, with its coefficient of variation tracking force variability, indicating that one signal captures most low‑frequency motor unit variability and explains the majority of force fluctuations.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate the relation between linear transformations of motor unit discharge rates and muscle force. Intramuscular (wire electrodes) and high‐density surface EMG (13 × 5 electrode grid) were recorded from the abductor digiti minimi muscle of eight healthy men during 60 s contractions at 5%, 7.5% and 10% of the maximal force. Spike trains of a total of 222 motor units were identified from the EMG recordings with decomposition algorithms. Principal component analysis of the smoothed motor unit discharge rates indicated that one component (first common component, FCC) described 44.2 ± 7.5% of the total variability of the smoothed discharge rates when computed over the entire contraction interval and 64.3 ± 10.2% of the variability when computed over 5 s intervals. When the FCC was computed from four or more motor units per contraction, it correlated with the force produced by the muscle (62.7 ± 10.1%) by a greater degree ( P < 0.001) than the smoothed discharge rates of individual motor units (41.4 ± 7.8%). The correlation between FCC and the force signal increased up to 71.8 ± 13.1% when the duration and the shape of the smoothing window for discharge rates were similar to the average motor unit twitch force. Moreover, the coefficients of variation (CoV) for the force and for the FCC signal were correlated in all subjects ( R 2 range = 0.14–0.56; P < 0.05) whereas the CoV for force was correlated to the interspike interval variability in only one subject ( R 2 = 0.12; P < 0.05). Similar results were further obtained from measures on the tibialis anterior muscle of an additional eight subjects during contractions at forces up to 20% of the maximal force (e.g. FCC explained 59.8 ± 11.0% of variability of the smoothed discharge rates). In conclusion, one signal captures most of the underlying variability of the low‐frequency components of motor unit discharge rates and explains large part of the fluctuations in the motor output during isometric contractions.