Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Test-retest reliability of gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Test-retest reliability of gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship
Do you wish to request the book?
Test-retest reliability of gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Test-retest reliability of gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship
2024
Overview
Fascicle force-length relationship is one major basic mechanical property of skeletal muscle, subsequently influencing movement mechanics. While force-length properties are increasingly described through ultrafast ultrasound imaging, their test-retest reliability remains unknown. Using ultrafast ultrasound, and electrically evoked contractions at various ankle angles, gastrocnemius medialis fascicle force-length relationship was assessed twice, few days apart, in sixteen participants. The test-retest reliability of the resulting fascicle force-length relationship key parameters — i.e., maximal force (Fmax), and optimal fascicle length (L0) — was evaluated considering (i) all the trials obtained at each ankle joint and (ii) the mean of the two trials obtained at each tested angle. Considering all trials, L0 indicated a ‘high’ test-retest reliability, with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) of 0.89 and Fmax a ‘moderate’ reliability (ICC = 0.71), while when averaging the two trials L0 reliability was ‘very-high’ (ICC = 0.91), and Fmax reliability ‘moderate’ (ICC = 0.73). All values of coefficient of variation and standard error of measurement were low, i.e., ≤7.7 % and ≤0.35 cm for L0 and ≤3.4 N for Fmax, respectively. Higher absolute reliability was reported for L0 than Fmax, with better reliability when averaging the two trials at each angle. All these parameters, in accordance with the limit of agreement, demonstrated that L0 and Fmax test-retest reliability is acceptable, particularly when averaging multiple points obtained at a given angle. Interestingly, the shape of the fascicle force-length relationship is more variable. Therefore, L0 and Fmax can be used to compare between days-effects following an intervention, while a comparison of fascicle operating lengths may require more precautions.
Publisher
Elsevier Ltd,Elsevier Limited,Elsevier
Subject
