Figure 1 shows representative data of torque, knee joint angle, angular velocity, and the EMG amplitude of the VI, VL, VM, and RF during concentric and eccentric isokinetic knee extensions at 30°/sec.
Torque-knee joint angle relationships
Figure 2 shows the torque-knee joint angle relationships during concentric and eccentric isokinetic knee extensions at 30, 90, and 120°/sec. During concentric contractions, one-way ANOVA showed that the ROM significantly affected the torque at 30°/sec (F1.6,19.6 = 67.2, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.848), 90°/sec (F1.3,16.1 = 39.6, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.768), and 120°/sec (F1.6,19.6 = 67.2, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.848). A pairwise comparison revealed that the torque values during CON80–100 at 30°/sec were significantly lower than those during CON100–120 (P = 0.003), but were significantly higher than those during CON140–160 (P = 0.001). The torque values during CON80–100 at 90 and 120°/sec were significantly lower than those during CON100–120 (both P = 0.002) and CON120–140 (both P = 0.010) for each angular velocity, but were significantly higher than those during CON140–160 (both P = 0.001).
During eccentric contractions, one-way ANOVA showed that the ROM significantly affected the torque at 90°/sec (F1.1,12.3 = 6.4, P = 0.023, η2 = 0.369) and 120°/sec (F1.2,13.1 = 7.3, P = 0.015, η2 = 0.400). A pairwise comparison revealed that the torque during ECC100–80 was significantly lower than that during ECC120–100 (all P = 0.048) at 90 and 120°/sec for each angular velocity.
nRMS-knee joint angle relationships during concentric contractions
Figure 3 shows the nRMS-knee joint angle relationships during isokinetic concentric contractions of knee extensions at 30, 90, and 120°/sec. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant muscle effects at 30°/sec (F3.0,48.0 = 8.6, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.351) and 120°/sec (F3.0,48.0 = 3.8, P = 0.017, η2 = 0.190), and significant ROM effects at 30°/sec (F1.8,87.1 = 22.7, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.322), 90°/sec (F1.9,90.2 = 15.7, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.246), and 120°/sec (F2.0,95.1 = 34.8, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.420). We also found muscle-by-ROM interactions at 30°/sec (F5.4,87.1 = 10.7, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.400), 90°/sec (F5.6,90.2 = 6.7, P A pairwise muscle comparison showed that the nRMS of the VI during CON80–100 was significantly higher than that of the VM (P = 0.039) and RF (P = 0.001) at 30°/sec, the VL (P = 0.010), VM (P = 0.023), and RF (P = 0.001) at 90°/sec, and the VM (P = 0.039) and RF (P = 0.001) at 120°/sec. The nRMS of the VI during ROM CON100–120 was also significantly higher than that of the RF (P = 0.003 to 0.029) at 30, 90, and 120°/sec.
nRMS-knee joint angle relationships during eccentric contractions
Figure 4 shows the nRMS-knee joint angle relationships during isokinetic eccentric contractions of knee extensions at 30, 90, and 120°/sec. Two-way ANOVA revealed no significant muscle effects. However, we found significant ROM effects at 30°/sec (F1.6,71.1 = 39.6, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.473), 90°/sec (F1.7,73.1 = 41.1, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.483), and 120°/sec (F1.9,85.7 = 35.0, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.443). We also found muscle-by-ROM interactions at 30°/sec (F4.8,77.1 = 10.0, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.406), 90°/sec (F5.0,73.1 = 8.7, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.372), and 120°/sec (F5.8,85.7 = 7.1, P = 0.001, η2 = 0.327).
A pairwise comparison among muscles revealed that the nRMS of the VI was significantly lower than that of the RF during ECC160–140 (P = 0.008) and ECC140–120 (P = 0.001) at 30°/sec and during ECC140–120 at 90°/sec. In contrast, the nRMS of the VI was significantly higher than that of the VL (P = 0.022), VM (P = 0.012), and RF (P = 0.001) during ECC100–80 at 30°/sec, significantly higher than that of the RF (P = 0.002) during ECC120–100, significantly higher than that of the VL (P = 0.015), VM (P = 0.043), and RF (P = 0.001) during ECC100–80 at 90°/sec, and significantly higher than that of the VL (P = 0.029) and RF (P = 0.001) during ECC100–80 at 120°/sec.