Table 5. Evidence for Inter-muscular co-ordination. |
| Author |
Participants |
Vibration
Method (type) |
Exercise
Type |
Frequency
(Hz) |
Amplitude
(mm) |
Duration |
Results |
Abercromby et
al., 2007a |
16 H
(9♂, 7 ♀) |
VV, SV
VV, SV |
DS
SS |
3030 |
44 |
30 s30 s |
EMG activity of the leg extensors were significantly greater during SV than VV. Proximal leg muscles were activated more than distal muscles. |
Mischi and
Cardinale, 2009 |
12 H
(5♂ , 7♀) |
Custom built isometric
elbow device |
Isometric
(20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% max force) |
28 |
NR |
15 s |
Vibration significantly increased coactivation during elbow extension for lower loads (20% & 40% max effort) but no differences in coactivation were reported during elbow flexion. |
|
|
|
Isometric
(20%, 40%,
60%, 80%,
100% max
force) |
0 |
NR |
15s |
|
Rothmuller and
Cafarelli, 1995 |
10 H ♂ |
Direct
vibration |
Isometric
Knee
extension |
1500 |
1.5 |
15 s |
Vibration of the agonist increased antagonist coactivity but it did not change the rate at which coactivation increased during fatigue. During vibration bicep femoris coactivation was greater during vibration. but it did not change during fatigue with or without vibration |
|
= Healthy; = Side alternating vibration; = Vertical vibration; = Not reported |
|