The orderly recruitment of motor units may be modified when a muscle is acting as an antagonist.

Abstract

Despite the perceived importance of antagonist muscle activity, it is unknown if motor unit (MU) behavior at recruitment differs when a muscle acts as an antagonist versus agonist. Fourteen healthy participants performed ramped, isometric elbow flexor or extensor contractions to 50% or 100% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) torque. Surface and fine-wire intramuscular electromyographic (EMG) recordings were sampled from biceps and triceps brachii. During agonist contractions, low-threshold MUs (recruited at <10% MVC torque) were sampled in all participants, with a total of 107 and 90 for biceps and triceps brachii, respectively. For ramped MVCs, antagonist surface EMG coactivation (% amplitude during agonist MVC) was 8.3 ± 6.6% for biceps and 15.2 ± 7.3% for triceps brachii. However, antagonist single MU activity was recorded from only four participants, with only one of these individuals having antagonist MUs recorded from both muscles. All antagonist MUs were successfully detected during agonist contractions, but many (∼40%) had a recruitment threshold >10% MVC torque. For MUs recorded during both agonist and antagonist contractions, discharge rate at recruitment was seemingly lower for antagonist than agonist contractions. Coexistence of typical levels of surface EMG-derived coactivation with scant antagonist MU recordings suggests that coactivation in these muscles is primarily the result of cross talk. Based on the limited antagonist MU data detected, MUs recruited early during an agonist contraction are not necessarily among those first recruited during an antagonist contraction. These findings highlight the possibility of a modification of orderly recruitment when a motoneuron pool is acting as an antagonist.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Modest levels of coactivation are widely considered essential for appropriate motor control; however, minimal attention has been given to recruitment patterns of motor units (MUs) from antagonist muscles. Despite the successful recording of many low-threshold MUs during agonist contractions, we recorded no antagonist MUs in most participants. Of the units recorded, only ∼60% matched those recruited at <10% of maximal torque when the muscle acted as an agonist, which suggests a modified recruitment order for antagonist MUs.