Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2025
Assessment of Neuromuscular Function Using Percutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation
Published on: September 13, 2015
Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Waveforms and Occlusion Pressures on Elicited Force and Microvascular
Trent E Cayot1, James W Bellew2, Estefania Zapata-Rodriguez2
1Department of Kinesiology, Health, and Sport Sciences, University of Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Context:
Interest in the effects of concurrently using neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and blood flow restriction (BFR) to improve muscle strength has risen, but limited studies and inconsistent findings have led to more questions. The 2 current projects aimed to systematically investigate how NMES waveform shape and BFR occlusion pressure acutely influence electrically elicited force (EEF) and tissue oxygen saturation (StO2) of the knee extensors.
Design:
A single-session repeated-measures design was followed.
Methods:
EEF and StO2 were measured in 2 different groups of 15 participants during 3 sets of NMES contractions. Ten NMES contractions per set were performed with 5 minutes of passive interset recovery. In the first project, different NMES waveforms (RUS, Russian burst-modulated alternating current; VMS, biphasic pulsed current; and VMS-Burst, burst-modulated biphasic pulsed current) were administered for each set, while BFR was applied at 60% limb occlusion pressure (LOP). During the second projet, VMS was administered, while a different BFR occlusion pressure (0% LOP, 40% LOP, and 80% LOP) was used during each set. Two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance examined if repetition and/or NMES waveform (first project) or BFR occlusion pressure (second project) significantly affected (P < .05) EEF or StO2.
Results:
VMS (12% [7%] MVIF) and VMS-Burst (13% [10%] MVIF) led to higher EFF compared with RUS (6% [5%] MVIF) with 60% LOP; 80% LOP (20% [14%] MVIF) led to lower EEF compared with 0% LOP (29% [17%] MVIF) with VMS. No significant differences in StO2 were observed between NMES waveforms or BFR occlusion pressures.
Conclusions:
If a clinician wanted to concurrently use NMES and BFR, the acute findings of the current projects would suggest the use of VMS or VMS-Burst with lower BFR occlusion pressure (40% LOP). However, further investigation into how these parameters would influence muscle strength subsequent to a training/rehabilitation intervention should be performed.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Muscle Stimulation Frequency
Wave summation
At low firing rates, motor neurons induce individual twitch contractions in muscle fibers. These twitches...
01:20Motor Unit Stimulation
The latent period of contraction marks the onset of excitation-contraction coupling, when the action potential propagates across the sarcolemma, preparing the muscle fibers for contraction. As the fibers enter the contraction phase, the...