Effects of Unilateral Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation with Illusionary Mirror Visual Feedback on the Contralateral Muscle: A Pilot Study

Xin Ye (), Daniel Vala, Hayden Walker, Victor Gaza, Vinz Umali, Patrick Brodoff, Nathan Gockel and Masatoshi Nakamura
Additional contact information
Xin Ye: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Daniel Vala: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Hayden Walker: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Victor Gaza: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Vinz Umali: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Patrick Brodoff: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Nathan Gockel: Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT 06117, USA
Masatoshi Nakamura: Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 1398 Shimami-cho, Kita-ku, Niigata 950-3198, Japan

IJERPH, 2023, vol. 20, issue 4, 1-12

Abstract: We aim to examine the cross-education effects of unilateral muscle neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) training combined with illusionary mirror visual feedback (MVF). Fifteen adults (NMES + MVF: 5; NMES: 5, Control: 5) completed this study. The experimental groups completed a 3-week NMES training on their dominant elbow flexor muscle. The NMES + MVF group had a mirror placed in the midsagittal plane between their upper arms, so a visual illusion was created in which their non-dominant arms appeared to be stimulated. Baseline and post-training measurements included both arms’ isometric strength, voluntary activation level, and resting twitch. Cross-education effects were not observed from all dependent variables. For the unilateral muscle, both experimental groups showed greater strength increases when compared to the control (isometric strength % changes: NMES + MVF vs. NMES vs. Control = 6.31 ± 4.56% vs. 4.72 ± 8.97% vs. −4.04 ± 3.85%, p < 0.05). Throughout the training, even with the maximally tolerated NMES, the NMES + MVF group had greater perceived exertion and discomfort than the NMES. Additionally, the NMES-evoked force increased throughout the training for both groups. Our data does not support that NMES combined with or without MVF induces cross-education. However, the stimulated muscle becomes more responsive to the NMES and can become stronger following the training.

Keywords: electrical stimulation; cross-education; contralateral; neuromuscular; mirror visual feedback (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3755/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/4/3755/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:4:p:3755-:d:1074721

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().