Table 4. Evidence for motor unit synchronisation. Author Participants Vibration Method (type) Exercise Type Frequency (Hz) Amplitude (mm) Duration Results Bosco et al., 1999a 12 ♂ national boxers DB Elbow Flexion 260 6 0 5 x 60 s 5 x 60 s During vibration %EMGrms significantly increased and elbow flexion power was significantly enhanced (14%) compared to no vibration. Bosco et al., 1999b 6 AT♀ SV Control SS SS 260 10 0 10 x 60s 10 x 60s Leg press velocity-force and power-force relationship shifted to the right after vibration Bosco et al., 2000 14 RA SV Standing, SS, lunge 26 10 5 x 90 s, 10 days Vibration increased leg press power (160% of body mass) by 7% and EMG/Power ratio significantly decreased Delecluse et al., 2003 18 UT ♀ 19 UT ♀ 18 UT ♀ VV Placebo Resistance DS, SS, lunge DS, SS, lunge Cardio +knee & leg extensor strength 35-40 Low Cardio (20mins) 20RM (2wks), 15RM (3wks), 12RM (3wks), 10RM (4wks) 2.5-5 Low 1-3 x 2-6 x30-60 s (3x/wk, 12 wks) There was a significant increase in isometric and dynamic knee extensor strength for vibration and resistance groups but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Vibration increased EMG activity in rectus femoris and medial gastrocnemius compared to placebo group. 19 UT ♀ Control No training NA NA Martin and Park, 1997 10 H Direct vibration Isometric hand grip 40, 80, 100, 120, 150, 200 at 0, 10 or 20% MVC 0.2-0.3 60 s Vibration frequency of greater than 150 Hz induced less motor unit synchronisation. When vibration increases subharmonic synchronisation increases but harmonic synchronisation decreases. = Recreationally active; = Healthy; = Athletes; = Untrained = Dumbbell; = Side alternating vibration; = Vertical vibration; = Dynamic squat; = Static squat; = Maximal voluntary contraction; = Not applicable; = Repetition maximum