The Effects of Anchor Schemes on Performance Fatigability, Neuromuscular Responses and the Perceived Sensations That Contributed to Task Termination

Authors

Robert Smith, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Terry J. Housh, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
Jocelyn E. Arnett, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
John Paul V. Anders, The Ohio State University
Tyler J. Neltner, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
Dolores G. Ortega, University of Nebraska - LincolnFollow
Richard J. Schmidt, University of Nebraska—LincolnFollow
Glen O. Johnson, University of Nebraska-LincolnFollow

Date of this Version

4-25-2023

Citation

Smith, R.W.; Housh, T.J.; Arnett, J.E.; Anders, J.P.V.; Neltner, T.J.; Ortega, D.G.; Schmidt, R.J.; Johnson, G.O. The Effects of Anchor Schemes on Performance Fatigability, Neuromuscular Responses and the Perceived Sensations That Contributed to Task Termination. J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2023, 8, 49. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk8020049

Comments

Open access.

Abstract

The present study examined the effect of anchor schemes on the time to task failure (TTF), performance fatigability, neuromuscular responses, and the perceived sensations that contributed to task termination following the sustained, isometric forearm flexion tasks. Eight women completed sustained, isometric forearm flexion tasks anchored to RPE = 8 (RPEFT) and the torque (TRQFT) that corresponded to RPE = 8. The subjects performed pre-test and post-test maximal isometric contractions to quantify performance fatigability and changes in electromyographic amplitude (EMG AMP) and neuromuscular efficiency (NME). In addition, the subjects completed a post-test questionnaire (PTQ) to quantify the contributions of perceived sensations to task termination. Repeated measure ANOVAs were used to assess the mean differences for TTF, performance fatigability, and neuromuscular responses. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests were used to assess the differences between anchor schemes for the average values from the PTQ item scores. For TTF, the RPEFT was longer than the TRQFT (174.9 ± 85.6 vs. 65.6 ± 68.0 s; p = 0.006). Collapsed across the anchor scheme, there were decreases in torque (23.7 ± 5.5 Nm vs. 19.6 ± 4.9 Nm; p < 0.001) and NME (1.00 ± 0.00 vs. 0.76 ± 0.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant (p > 0.577) changes for EMG AMP. For the PTQ, there were no differences (p > 0.05) between anchor schemes. There were, however, inter-individual differences in the response scores. The current findings indicated that performance fatigability was likely due to peripheral fatigue (based on NME), not central fatigue (based on EMG AMP). Furthermore, the use of a PTQ may serve as a simple tool to assess the contributions of perceived sensations to task termination.