Influence of quadriceps conditioning on soleus motoneuron excitability in young and old adults.
Influence of quadriceps conditioning on soleus motoneuron excitability in young and old adults.
复制标题
股四头肌调节对年轻人和老年人比目鱼肌运动神经元兴奋性的影响。
DOI：
10.1249/00005768-199302000-00014
复制
发表时间：
1993
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
D. Koceja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Koceja
为了研究神经肌肉随年龄的变化，我们测量了 10 名大学年龄（M = 20.9 岁）和 10 名健康活跃的老年受试者（M = 74.3 岁）的跟腱拍打反射 (ATR) 的等长力-时间曲线。为了研究脊髓间神经元通路，还通过敲击同侧或对侧髌腱来调节腱反射。条件刺激先于 ATR 25、40、55、70、85、100、115、130 或 145 毫秒。每个条件反射间隔进行 3 次试验，加上 3 次单侧试验，每个实验时段 30 次试验。结果表明，老年受试者单侧跟腱拍击反射的发力显着降低，半松弛时间显着延长。此外，同侧条件作用对年轻受试者的小腿三头肌产生短潜伏期促进和长潜伏期抑制，而相同的条件作用仅对老年受试者产生延迟的长潜伏期抑制。同样，对侧调节在年轻受试者中产生了短潜伏期促进作用，而在年老受试者中没有观察到任何变化。结论是，两组的单侧跟腱敲击反应不同，并且两组的反射恢复曲线也不同。提出了几种神经生理学机制来促成这些差异。
In an effort to investigate neuromuscular changes with age, the isometric force-time curve of the Achilles tendon-tap reflex (ATR) was measured in 10 college age (M = 20.9 yr) and 10 healthy active old subjects (M = 74.3 yr). In an effort to investigate spinal interneuronal pathways, the tendon-jerk was also conditioned with a tap to the ipsilateral or contralateral patellar tendon. The conditioning stimulus preceded the ATR by 25, 40, 55, 70, 85, 100, 115, 130, or 145 ms. Three trials were elicited at each conditioning interval plus three unilateral trials, for 30 trials per experimental session. Results indicated that the force production of the unilateral Achilles tendon-tap reflex was significantly reduced and the half-relaxation times were significantly lengthened in the old subjects. Moreover, ipsilateral conditioning produced short-latency facilitation and long-latency inhibition to the triceps surae in young subjects, whereas the same conditioning produced only a delayed long-latency inhibition in the old subjects. Similarly, the contralateral conditioning produced short-latency facilitation in the young subjects, with no changes observed in the old subjects. It is concluded that unilateral Achilles tendon-tap responses are different for the two groups, and that the reflex recovery profiles for the two groups are different. Several neurophysiological mechanisms are proposed to contribute to these differences.