Phys. Ther. Korea 2022; 29(4): 269-273
Published online November 20, 2022
https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2022.29.4.269
© Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy
Jeongwoo Je , PT, BPT, Woochol Joseph Choi , PT, PhD
Injury Prevention and Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea
Correspondence to: Woochol Joseph Choi
E-mail: wcjchoi@yonsei.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-3806
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is used for muscle strengthening. While voluntary muscle contraction follows Henneman et al.’s size principle, the NMES-induced muscle training disrespects the neurophysiology, which may lead to unwanted changes (i.e., declined balance ability). Objects: We examined how the balance was affected by abdominal muscle training with the NMES.
Methods: Fifteen young adults (10 males and 5 females) aged between 21 and 30 received abdominal muscle strengthening with NMES for 23 minutes. Before and after the training, participants’ balance was measured through one leg standing on a force plate with eyes open or closed. Outcome variables included mean distance (MDIST), root mean square distance (RDIST), total excursion (TOTEX), mean velocity (MVELO), and 95% confidence circle area (AREA) of center of pressure data. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test if these outcome variables were associated with time (pre and post) and vision.
Results: All outcome variables were not associated with time (p > 0.05). However, all outcome variables were associated with vision (p = 0.0001), and MVELO and TOTEX were 52.4% (45.5 mm/s versus 95.6 mm/s) and 52.4% (364.1 mm versus 764.5 mm) smaller, respectively, in eyes open than eyes closed (F = 55.8, p = 0.0005; F = 55.8, p = 0.0005). Furthermore, there was no interaction between time and vision (F = 0.024, p = 0.877).
Conclusion: Despite the different neurophysiology of muscle contraction, abdominal muscle strengthening with NMES did not affect balance.
Keywords: Abdominal muscles, Balance, Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, One-leg standing
Phys. Ther. Korea 2022; 29(4): 269-273
Published online November 20, 2022 https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2022.29.4.269
Copyright © Korean Research Society of Physical Therapy.
Jeongwoo Je , PT, BPT, Woochol Joseph Choi , PT, PhD
Injury Prevention and Biomechanics Laboratory, Department of Physical Therapy, Yonsei University, Wonju, Korea
Correspondence to:Woochol Joseph Choi
E-mail: wcjchoi@yonsei.ac.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-3806
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is used for muscle strengthening. While voluntary muscle contraction follows Henneman et al.’s size principle, the NMES-induced muscle training disrespects the neurophysiology, which may lead to unwanted changes (i.e., declined balance ability). Objects: We examined how the balance was affected by abdominal muscle training with the NMES.
Methods: Fifteen young adults (10 males and 5 females) aged between 21 and 30 received abdominal muscle strengthening with NMES for 23 minutes. Before and after the training, participants’ balance was measured through one leg standing on a force plate with eyes open or closed. Outcome variables included mean distance (MDIST), root mean square distance (RDIST), total excursion (TOTEX), mean velocity (MVELO), and 95% confidence circle area (AREA) of center of pressure data. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance was used to test if these outcome variables were associated with time (pre and post) and vision.
Results: All outcome variables were not associated with time (p > 0.05). However, all outcome variables were associated with vision (p = 0.0001), and MVELO and TOTEX were 52.4% (45.5 mm/s versus 95.6 mm/s) and 52.4% (364.1 mm versus 764.5 mm) smaller, respectively, in eyes open than eyes closed (F = 55.8, p = 0.0005; F = 55.8, p = 0.0005). Furthermore, there was no interaction between time and vision (F = 0.024, p = 0.877).
Conclusion: Despite the different neurophysiology of muscle contraction, abdominal muscle strengthening with NMES did not affect balance.
Keywords: Abdominal muscles, Balance, Neuromuscular electrical stimulation, One-leg standing
Table 1 . Demographic information of participants.
Sex | Height (cm) | Weight (kg) | BMI (kg/m2) | Age (y) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 179.1 ± 3.9 | 82.6 ± 11.7 | 25.8 ± 3.7 | 25.9 ± 2.7 |
Female | 159.4 ± 7.0 | 55.5 ± 8.0 | 21.8 ± 2.0 | 23.6 ± 1.8 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. BMI, body mass index..
Table 2 . Average values of outcome variables.
Measure | NMES | p-value | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Eyes closed | Eyes open | Vision | Time | Interaction | |||||
Pre | Post | Pre | Post | ||||||
MDIST (mm) | 14.4 ± 2.7 | 15.2 ± 3.9 | 7.6 ± 1.6 | 8.3 ± 1.8 | 0.0005* | 0.092 | 0.877 | ||
RDIST (mm) | 15.9 ± 2.9 | 17.3 ± 5.4 | 8.5 ± 1.8 | 9.4 ± 2.1 | 0.0005* | 0.075 | 0.639 | ||
TOTEX (mm) | 764.5 ± 183.7 | 711.0 ± 182.7 | 364.1 ± 103.1 | 344.6 ± 104.7 | 0.0005* | 0.051 | 0.350 | ||
MVELO (mm/s) | 95.6 ± 23.0 | 88.9 ± 22.8 | 45.5 ± 12.9 | 43.1 ± 13.1 | 0.0005* | 0.051 | 0.350 | ||
AREA (mm2) | 2145.3 ± 754.6 | 3448.7 ± 4526.1 | 650.3 ± 254.5 | 814.6 ± 352.9 | 0.0005* | 0.196 | 0.313 |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation. MDIST, mean distance; RDIST, root mean square distance; TOTEX, total excursion; MVELO, mean velocity; AREA, 95% confidence circle area. *p < 0.05..