Farklı dirsek açılarında biceps brachii ve triceps brachii kaslarının maksimum istemli izometrik kasılmasının karşılaştırmalı analizi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı dirsek açılarında biseps brachii (BB) ve triceps brachii (TB) kaslarından elde edilen maksimum istemli izometrik kasılma (MVIC) değerlerini karşılaştırmak ve bu karşılaştırmaya göre hangi açının en optimal verimliliği sağladığını belirlemektir. Yöntem: Çalışmaya toplam 30 sağlıklı gönüllü katıldı. BB (dirsek fleksiyonu) ve TB (dirsek ekstansiyonu) kaslarının MVIC sırasında elektromiyografi (EMG) kök ortalama kare (RMS) genliği değerlerini ölçmek için 70°, 90° ve 110° fleksiyon açılarında EMG verileri elde edildi. Bulgular: BB kasında MVIC sırasında EMG RMS genliği dirsek eklem açısına anlamlı şekilde bağlı bulunmuş olup, en yüksek aktivasyon 70°’de gözlendi. Benzer şekilde TB kasında da en yüksek aktivasyon 70°’de kaydedildi. BB/TB EMG RMS oranı, tüm açılarda BB’nin daha yüksek aktivasyon gösterdiğini ortaya koydu. Post-hoc analizlerde BB aktivasyonunun 70°’de 90° ve 110°’ye kıyasla anlamlı olarak daha yüksek olduğu, TB aktivasyonunun ise 70°’de 90° ve 110°’a göre, ayrıca 90°’de 110°’a göre anlamlı şekilde yüksek olduğu bulundu. Sonuç: Bulgular, eklem açısının hem BB hem de TB kasları için MVIC sırasında EMG RMS genliği değerlerini önemli ölçüde etkilediğini göstermiştir. Bu bulgular, egzersiz reçetesi ve rehabilitasyonda eklem açısının seçiminin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

• Elektromiyografi
• Dirsek eklemi
• Biceps brachii
• Triceps brachii
• İzometrik kasılma.

Comparative analysis of the maximum voluntary isometric contraction of the biceps brachii and triceps brachii at different elbow angles

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study is to compare the maximum voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) values obtained from the biceps brachii (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) muscles at different elbow angles and to determine which angle provides optimum efficiency according to this comparison. Methods: A total of 30 healthy volunteers participated in the study. Electromyography (EMG) data were obtained at 70°, 90°, and 110° of flexion to measure root mean square (RMS) amplitude during MVIC of BB (for elbow flexion) and TB (for elbow extension) muscles. Results: For BB, EMG RMS amplitude during MVIC was significantly influenced by elbow joint angle, with the highest activation observed at 70° compared to 90° and 110°. Similarly, TB activation was angle-dependent, showing the greatest values at 70°. The BB/TB EMG RMS ratio further confirmed consistently greater activation of BB across all joint angles. Post-hoc analyses revealed that BB activation was significantly greater at 70° compared with 90° and 110°, while TB activation was higher at 70° compared with 90° and 110°, and also higher at 90° compared with 110°. Conclusion: The findings demonstrated that joint angle influences EMG amplitudes during MVIC for both BB and TB muscles. These findings highlight the importance of joint angle selection in exercise prescription and rehabilitation.

Keywords

• Electromyography
• Elbow joint
• Biceps brachii
• Triceps brachii
• Isometric contraction.

References

1. Akima H, Maeda H, Koike T, et al. Effect of elbow joint angles on electromyographic activity versus force relationships of synergistic muscles of the triceps brachii. PloS One. 2021;16:e0252644.
2. Kukić F, Mrdaković V, Stanković A, et al. Effects of knee extension joint angle on quadriceps femoris muscle activation and exerted torque in maximal voluntary isometric contraction. Biology. 2022;11:1490.
3. Yuan H, Kim MK. Neuromuscular dynamics during isometric knee contractions: effects of target force, knee angle, and tibial rotation on force steadiness. Sci Rep. 2025;15:13773.
4. Son J, Rymer WZ. Effects of changes in ankle joint angle on the relation between plantarflexion torque and EMG magnitude in major plantar flexors of male chronic stroke survivors. Front Neurol. 2020;11:224.
5. Dick TJ, Tucker K, Hug F, et al. Consensus for experimental design in electromyography (CEDE) project: Application of EMG to estimate muscle force. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2024;79:102910.
6. Sözen H, Cè E, Bisconti AV, et al. Differences in electromechanical delay components induced by sex, age and physical activity level: new insights from a combined electromyographic, mechanomyographic and force approach. Sport Sci Health. 2019;15:623-633.
7. Boettcher CE, Ginn KA, Cathers I. Standard maximum isometric voluntary contraction tests for normalizing shoulder muscle EMG. J Orthop Res. 2008;26:1591-1597.
8. Kennedy PM, Cresswell AG. The effect of muscle length on motor-unit recruitment during isometric plantar flexion in humans. Exp Brain Res. 2001;137:58-64.

9. Garnier YM, Lepers R, Canepa P, et al. Effect of the knee and hip angles on knee extensor torque: neural, architectural, and mechanical considerations. Front Physiol. 2022;12:789867.
10. Kellis E, Blazevich AJ. Hamstrings force-length relationships and their implications for angle-specific joint torques: a narrative review. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2022;14:166.
11. Bradford JC, Tweedell A, Leahy L. High-density surface and intramuscular EMG data from the tibialis anterior during dynamic contractions. Sci Data. 2023;10:434.
12. Kovács B, Csala D, Yang S, et al. Knee position affects medial gastrocnemius and soleus activation during dynamic plantarflexion: no evidence for an inter-muscle compensation in healthy young adults. Biol Open. 2024;13:BIO061810.
13. Linnamo V, Strojnik V, Komi PV. Maximal force during eccentric and isometric actions at different elbow angles. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2006;96:672-678.
14. Yoshida R, Kasahara K, Murakami Y, et al. Maximum isokinetic eccentric elbow flexor muscle force can be estimated using maximum isometric contraction force. Cureus. 2024;16:e70878.
15. Doheny EP, Lowery MM, FitzPatrick DP, et al. Effect of elbow joint angle on force-EMG relationships in human elbow flexor and extensor muscles. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2008;18:760-770.
16. Doheny E, Fitzpatrick D, Lowery M, et al. Validating a neuromusculoskeletal model of the elbow joint. J Biomech. 2006;39:S47.
17. Konrad P. The abc of emg. Pract Introd Kinesiol Electromyogr. 2005;1:30-55.
18. De Luca CJ. The use of surface electromyography in biomechanics. J Appl Biomech. 1997;13:135-163.
19. Clancy EA, Morin EL, Merletti R. Sampling, noise-reduction and amplitude estimation issues in surface electromyography. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12:1-16.
20. Farina D, Merletti R, Enoka RM. The extraction of neural strategies from the surface EMG. J Appl Physiol. 2004;96:1486-1495.
21. Leedham JS, Dowling JJ. Force-length, torque-angle and EMG-joint angle relationships of the human in vivo biceps brachii. Eur J Appl Physiol. 1995;70:421-426.
22. Lieber RL, Friden J. Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture. Muscle Nerve. 2000;23:1647-1666.
23. Liu P, Liu L, Martel F, et al. Influence of joint angle on EMG-torque model during constant-posture, quasi-constant-torque contractions. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23:1020-1028.
24. Onishi H, Yagi R, Oyama M, et al. EMG-angle relationship of the hamstring muscles during maximum knee flexion. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2002;12:399-406.
25. Uwamahoro R, Sundaraj K, Feroz FS. Effect of forearm postures and elbow joint angles on elbow flexion torque and mechanomyography in neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the biceps brachii. Sensors. 2023;23:8165.
26. Miller W, Jeon S, Kang M, et al. Does Performance-Related Information Augment the Maximal Isometric Force in the Elbow Flexors? Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2021;46:91-101.
27. Cunnane BT, Sinha U, Malis V, et al. Effect of different ankle joint positions on medial gastrocnemius muscle fiber strains during isometric plantarflexion. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14986.
28. Koo TK, Mak AF, Hung LK. In vivo determination of subject-specific musculotendon parameters: applications to the prime elbow flexors in normal and hemiparetic subjects. Clin Biomech. 2002;17:390-399.
29. Prodoehl J, Gottlieb GL, Corcos DM. The neural control of single degree-of-freedom elbow movements. Exp Brain Res. 2003;153:7-15.
30. Kubo K, Tsunoda N, Kanehisa H, et al. Activation of agonist and antagonist muscles at different joint angles during maximal isometric efforts. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2004;91:349-352.
31. Hou J, Sun Y, Sun L, et al. A Pilot Study of Individual Muscle Force Prediction during Elbow Flexion and Extension in the Neurorehabilitation Field. Sensors. 2016;16:2018.
32. Akima H, Maeda H, Koike T, et al. Effect of elbow joint angles on electromyographic activity versus force relationships of synergistic muscles of the triceps brachii. PLoS One. 2021;16:e0252644.
33. Roman-Liu D, Bartuzi P. Influence of type of MVC test on electromyography measures of biceps brachii and triceps brachii. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24:200-206.