See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341617580

Mind-muscle Connection: Limited Effect of Verbal Instructions on Muscle

Activity in a Seated Row Exercise

Article  in  Perceptual and Motor Skills · May 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0031512520926369

CITATION READS

1 257

6 authors, including:

Rafael Akira Fujita Nilson Ribeiro dos Santos Silva

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
22 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bruno Luiz Souza Bedo Paulo Roberto Pereira Santiago

University of São Paulo University of São Paulo
35 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   534 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SNP Variability View project

Special Issue "Resistance Exercise for Health, Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Muscle Strength" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafael Akira Fujita on 08 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Full title:

Mind-muscle Connection: Limited Effect of Verbal Instructions on Muscle Activity in a Seated Row

Exercise

Authors:
Rafael A. Fujita1,4, Nilson R. S. Silva1, Bruno L. S. Bedo2, Paulo P. R. S Santiago1, Paulo V. Gentil3 and
Matheus M. Gomes1,4*

Author affiliations:
1
University of Sao Paulo, School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeirao Preto, Ribeirao Preto, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
2
University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
3
Federal University of Goias, Faculty of Physical Education and Dance, Goiania, Goias, Brazil
4
University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto College of Nursing, Ribeirao Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil

*Corresponding author
PhD. Matheus Gomes – Asssistant professor at University of Sao Paulo, School of Physical Education and
Sport of Ribeirao Preto.
Address: Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Monte Alegre, Ribeirao Preto – SP, Brazil
Zip code: 14040-907
Phone: +551633150345
E-mail: mmgomes@usp.br

Funding details:
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001. The funder had no involvement in the research
process. There are no perceived financial conflicts of interest related to the research.
 1

Abstract

Verbal instruction increases electromyographic (EMG) activity in the first three repetitions of an exercise,

but its effect on an entire exercise set until failure is unknown. Once there are changes in motor unit

recruitment due to fatigue, the effect of verbal instructions can change during different intervals of a set.

This study analyzed whether verbal instruction emphasized the contraction of back muscles (i.e.,

myoelectric activity) during initial, intermediate, and final exercise repetitions performed until failure.

Twenty participants with little or no experience in strength training performed a seated row exercise with

and without verbal instruction. Surface electrodes were fixed over the latissimus dorsi, teres major, biceps

brachii, and posterior deltoid muscles. Myoelectric activity was computed by mean amplitude and by the

median frequency. We analyzed data with repeated measures MANOVA and found that, with verbal

instruction, there was increased EMG mean amplitude in the latissimus dorsi (15.21%, p=0.030) and

reduced EMG mean amplitude in the posterior deltoid (14.39%, p=0.018) on initial repetitions. Other

muscle EMG amplitudes did not change. On intermediate repetitions, there was reduced signal amplitude

only in the posterior deltoid (15.03%, p=0.022). The verbal instruction did not interfere with signal

amplitude on final repetitions nor in the median frequency throughout the series. Verbal instruction seems

to have little effect on increasing myoelectric activity of these targeted muscles in an entire set of a

resistance training.

Keywords: Mind muscle connection, surface electromyography, attentional focus, muscle excitation,

resistance training.
 2

INTRODUCTION

Strength training is usually performed with different goals (aesthetics, health, rehabilitation,

and sports performance); its practice is generally recommended for its health benefits (Ratamess, 2011).

During resistance exercises, many muscles can be recruited to execute a movement. In this sense, studies

of muscular recruitment and myoelectric activity have sought to analyze which muscles participate on

determined exercises and what possible ways might exercise recruit increased activity of specific muscle

groups (Gentil, Oliveira, de Araujo Rocha Junior, do Carmo, & Bottaro, 2007; Snyder & Fry, 2012).

Recent studies have proposed that verbal instructions interfere with the magnitude of myoelectric activity

of specific muscles (Calatayud et al., 2016; Paoli et al., 2019; Snyder & Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech,

2009).

Verbal instruction involves providing short phrases to the practitioner, to draw attention to some

task detail (Magill, 2008). The use of verbal instruction is common during strength training practice

(Campenella, Mattacola, & Kimura, 2000), including such verbal instructions as emphasizing the need to

contract specific muscles. Verbal instructions to stress specific muscles have increased myoelectric

activity in exercises with loads lower than 60%1RM (one repetition maximum) (Calatayud et al., 2016;

Snyder & Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech, 2009). Snyder and Leech (2009) showed that verbal instructions to

emphasize the latissimus dorsi muscle during lat pulldown exercise at 30%1RM, increased its

electromyographic (EMG) activity 17.6%. Furthermore, Snyder and Fry (2012) revealed that, during

bench press exercise at 50%1RM, verbal instructions to emphasize the pectoralis major increased its

EMG activity by 22.3%; and, when verbal instructions emphasized the triceps brachii, its activity

increased by 25.7%. However, when using 80%1RM in a bench press exercise, verbal instructions were

less effective (Snyder & Fry, 2012) or incapable of increasing agonist muscle activity (Calatayud et al.,

2016; Daniels & Cook, 2017). Probably, when performed with high loads, exercises promote the

recruitment of all or almost all motor units, creating these different responses to verbal instructions
 3

(Calatayud et al., 2016). Therefore, at this intensity, it would be difficult to voluntary increase muscle

recruitment with verbal instructions. Curiously, while we found evidence of a verbal instruction effect at

about 60 and 80%1RM, we were not able to find studies that had investigated the effects of verbal

instruction on myoelectric activity during exercise performed at 70%1RM, a commonly used intensity in

strength training programs (Fleck & Kraemer, 2014).

Furthermore, previous studies analyzed the effect of verbal instructions in only three dynamic

repetitions (Calatayud et al., 2016; Daniels & Cook, 2017; Snyder & Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech, 2009),

limiting an understanding of their effect during multiple repetitions, as are typically performed during

resistance training. Thus, it is necessary to verify if verbal instructions can interfere with myoelectric

activity in a real strength training context through modifications that occur in motor unit recruitment over

the repetitions (Jenkins et al., 2015). Once near fatigue creates a natural increase or reduction in motor

unit recruitment of the involved muscles (Bigland-Ritchie, Johansson, Lippold, & Woods, 1983; Carlo J

De Luca, 1997; Masuda, Masuda, Sadoyama, Inaki, & Katsuta, 1999; Moritani, Nagata, & Muro, 1982)

verbal instructions may have a different effect, depending on the state of fatigue.

Also, previous studies analyzed the effect of verbal instructions on the amplitude of EMG signals

(Calatayud et al., 2016; Daniels & Cook, 2017; Snyder & Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech, 2009). However,

as EMG amplitude reflects both motor unit recruitment and motor unit firing rates, spectral analysis can

provide valuable information regarding the neuromotor system’s chosen mechanism (either increased

recruitment of new motor units or increased firing rate of the same motor units) for modulating strength

necessary to execute the movement. Past research reported that increased myoelectric activity occurs

preferentially due to a rise in the recruitment of new motor units (Bigland-Ritchie et al., 1983). Research

that tests this mechanistic hypothesis regarding verbal instruction effects with spectral analysis would add

to an understanding of how verbal instructions influence myoelectric activity (Carlo J De Luca, 2008).

Accordingly, in the present study, we analyzed the effects of verbal instruction on the temporal and
 4

spectral domains of the myoelectric activity of latissimus dorsi (LD), teres major (TM), biceps brachii

(BB) and posterior deltoid (PD) muscles during a seated row exercise performed at 70%1RM until muscle

failure. We hypothesized that verbal instructions would increase the myoelectric activity of the LD in all

analyzed intervals during the seated row exercise.

METHOD

Participants

To calculate the required participant sample size for this study through statistical power analysis,

we used the mean (77.7), and standard deviation (11.24) of the root mean square (RMS) variable of

latissimus dorsi muscle myolectric activity of five participants during the seated row exercise in a

previous pilot study. Using a specific software program (Minitab Statistical 17, State College,

Pennsylvania, USA), we assumed a 95% bilateral confidence level and a margin of error of 7.7,

representing 10% of the average. Our calculation revealed a required sample size of 13 participants. We

recruited even more participants so as to account for any loss of myoelectric signal uptake during data

collection. Thus, our study sample was composed of 20 male adults (M age = 19.80, SD = 1.54 years; M

weight = 71.92, SD = 9.39 kg; M height = 177.28, SD = 7.07 cm), recruited through dissemination of

posters on the campus university and publications in social media. We collected data only from male

participants in order to standardize the sample and make it comparable to previous studies (Calatayud et

al., 2016, 2017; Daniels & Cook, 2017; Fujita, Marchi, Silva, & Gomes, 2019; Paoli et al., 2019; Snyder

& Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech, 2009). Our inclusion criteria were males aged between 18-40 years with

little (maximum six months) or no previous experience in strength training. Exclusion criteria were: (a)

engagement in strength training within the past 12 months, (b) presenting any orthopedic problem in the

last six months, (c) presenting any neurologic problem, or (d) presenting any other health problem that

would prohibit performing the proposed exercises. All participants received clarifications about the

experimental protocols and signed informed written consent before data collection. We obtained separate
 5

informed consent to release any identifying information from all individual participants for whom

identifying information is included in this article. All protocol procedures involving human participants

were approved by our local Research Ethics Committee, which acted in accordance with the Helsinki

Declaration.

Procedures

Before data collection, we evaluated the reliability of the main measuring instruments in five

participants over two separate days. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed a technical error of

measurement of 1.04%. We then performed data collection over three different days, with a minimum rest

interval of two days. No session exceeded two hours. We performed the 1RM test on the first day, using

the Brzycki (1993) equation. Initially, participants observed a demonstration of the expected movement

on the seated row exercise machine (Flex Fitness Equipment, Cedral, São Paulo, Brazil). Then, they

performed two sets of 12 submaximal repetitions as a warm-up, with a 90-second passive interval

between each set.

In sequence, there was a 5-minute rest interval following these sets, and then we performed the

load quantification test. In the few situations in which participants performed more than ten repetitions,

considered as the maximum number for reliability of load estimation (LeSuer, McCormick, Mayhew,

Wasserstein, & Arnold, 1997), we provided a passive interval of five minutes, and participants then made

a re-attempt with a greater load. The cadence for the warm-up and all sets in the tested conditions was

two seconds for the concentric phase and two seconds for the eccentric phase (Gentil et al., 2007),

controlled by a metronome app (Pro metronome, Xanin Technology GmbH, China). All participants were

instructed to avoid pausing during each metronome beat. The load and number of repetitions were

recorded. Thus, it was possible to predict the loads equivalent to 40 and 70%1RM, used in the next tests.

On the second and third day, participants initially performed the warm-up protocol at 40%1RM

(Kraemer & Fry, 1995). The warm-up protocol was the same as made in the load quantification test.
 6

Then, the participants performed three maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) lasting five

seconds (C J De Luca, 1984) for the selected muscles, with 90 seconds of rest between them. The MVIC

of the LD and TM muscles were measured at the seated row exercise equipment. The participants

remained with their upper limbs in parallel, maintaining their forearm supinated, and their elbows flexed

at 90º (Lehman, Buchan, Lundy, Myers, & Nalborczyk, 2004). The movable rod of the equipment was

locked, allowing the participants to perform the maximum force isometrically. The MVIC of the PD

muscle was measured by horizontal abduction of shoulders that were maintained at 90º of horizontal

adduction with the wrist at neutral position (B. J. Schoenfeld, 2013), in the peck deck machine (Flex

Fitness Equipment, Cedral, São Paulo, Brazil). Finally, the MVIC of the BB muscle was measured at the

cross over machine (Flex Fitness Equipment, Cedral, São Paulo, Brazil) with the elbow flexed at 90º,

maintaining the wrist at supinated position (Alenabi, Jackson, Tetreault, & Begon, 2013). The angles of

all joints were measured with a goniometer (Shopfisio, Mogi Guaçu, São Paulo, Brazil). In all MVIC

measures, the participants were verbally motivated to perform the movement at their maximum effort

(Calatayud et al., 2017; McNair, Depledge, Brettkelly, & Stanley, 1996).

After MVIC tests, the participants rested passively for five minutes. Then, we collected the EMG

data for the LD, TM, BB, and PD muscles at the seated row exercise. This multi-joint exercise is widely

used in strength training programs and involves the participation of shoulder extensor and elbow flexor

muscles. At the beginning of the exercise, participants’ hands were below shoulder height, and, then,

participants received instructions to bring the bar to the thorax. At the end of the movement, the elbow

was flexed approximately 90º. All participants continuously rested their thorax against a support pad

(Figure 1). Throughout the movement, the forearm remained supinated once the biceps brachii is more

recruited on elbow flexion, maintaining this position (Steele, Fisher, Giessing, & Gentil, 2017).

***INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE***

 7

On the second day, the participants performed an exercise set with maximum repetitions without

verbal instructions (NONE condition). They were encouraged to achieve concentric muscle failure,

defined as "the inability to perform more concentric contractions without significant change in posture or

duration of repetitions" (Steele et al., 2017). Therefore, when the individuals changed the movement

pattern and left the previously stipulated cadence, the set was interrupted. It should be noted that previous

studies showed that the change in velocity might be an efficient objective criterion for interrupting the set

(Gentil et al., 2018). On the third day, the same analytic procedure was carried out with the inclusion of

the verbal instruction (VI condition). We used the verbal instruction, "concentrate on extending the

shoulder, pull with the back." This verbal instruction created an internal focus in which attention was

directed to body segments during movements (Marchant, Greig, & Scott, 2009; Vance, Wulf, Tollner,

McNevin, & Mercer, 2004; G Wulf & Prinz, 2001; Gabriele Wulf, 2013). The verbal instruction was

given at the beginning of a set and repeated every three repetitions. The instruction emphasized shoulder

extension aiming to increase LD muscle activity. During the verbal instruction, we also concomitantly

palpated the target muscle (LD) region.

EMG Data Collection and Analysis

EMG data were acquired at a sampling frequency of 2000Hz using four channels of 16-bit

resolution (Trigno Lab Wireless, Delsys Inc., Boston-MA, USA). The sensors have a set of four bar shape

silver electrodes (1x10mm), with a distance of 10mm between each silver bar. A single researcher placed

all sensors on the participant's skin following SENIAM recommendations for skin preparation (Hermens,

Freriks, Disselhorst-Klug, & Rau, 2000). The electrodes were placed over the LD, TM, BB, and PD

muscles at the dominant side. Only the BB has the sensor location described by SENIAM. The remaining

electrodes fixations were based on previous studies (Escamilla et al., 2006; Konrad, 2005; B. Schoenfeld

et al., 2013). Factors such as environmental temperature and time of data collection were controlled so as

to make them similar for all participants in all tests (Konrad, 2005).
 8

The data were filtered by the Butterworth digital passband filter (10-500Hz). We measured the

magnitude of myoelectric activity with the RMS of three different temporal windows (the first two

repetitions, the two intermediate repetitions, and the two last repetitions) and calculated each set. We then

normalized each RMS value by the average RMS value obtained during the three MVICs. In all MVIC,

data were collected for five seconds, but ,for the analysis, we discarded the first and last seconds. We

estimated the median frequency by calculating the power spectral density using Welch’s periodogram

method (pwelch.m function on Matlab), computing these variables using MatLab R2019a (The

Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, United States) customized scripts while considering the same temporal

windows (first two repetitions, the two intermediate repetitions, and the two last repetitions) of each

repetition set.

Statistical analyses

As some variables did not present homogeneity of variance necessary to transform them into

logarithmic variables, we performed six multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) – three for

magnitude and three for the median frequency of the myoelectric signal. Each MANOVA represented a

different time window (initial, intermediate, and final repetitions) with the conditions of with and without

verbal instruction (NONE vs. VI) treated as repeated measures. The dependent variables of the

MANOVAs were the RMS and the median frequency of the myoelectric signal of the LD, TM, BB, and

PD of the initial, intermediate, and final repetitions, respectively. We calculated the effect size (partial Eta

square) and test power parameters and set the statistical significance level at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Participants reported their past exercise experience levels through a questionnaire revealing that,

11 had little experience (M = 4.78, SD = 1.30 months) and nine had no prior strength training. Those who

reported minimal experience in strength training had not been engaged in strength training for 22.36

months (SD = 11.41) before the study. The participants’ average load used to perform the seated row was
 9

46.84 kg (SD = 7.70). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed no difference in the number of repetitions

between the NONE and VI conditions. Under the NONE condition, participants performed an average of

11.70 (SD = 2.43) repetitions, while under the VI conditions, participants performed an average of 11.90

(SD = 1.92) repetitions.

For the initial repetitions the MANOVA indicated a significant main effect of condition [Wilks’

Lambda = 0.357, F4,14 = 6.314, p = 0.004, effect size = 0.643, power = 0.942]. Post-hoc univariate

analysis indicated a difference in magnitude of the LD [F1,17 = 5.595, p = 0.030, effect size = 0.248, power

= 0.607] and PD RMS [F1,17 = 6.787, p = 0.018, effect size = 0.285, power = 0.690]. There was a 15.21%

increase in LD myoelectric activity and a 14.39% reduction in PD myoelectrical activity. There were no

significant condition differences for the TM and BB muscles.

For the intermediate repetitions the MANOVA also indicated a significant main effect of

condition [Wilks’ Lambda = 0.513, F4,14 = 3.327, p = 0.041, effect size = 0.487, power = 0.694]. The

univariate analysis indicated a difference in magnitude of the PD RMS [F1,17 = 3.57, p = 0.022, effect size

= 0.273, power = 0.664]. The PD muscle reduced its activity by 15.03%. There were no significant

condition differences for the LD, TM and BB muscles. Regarding the final repetitions, the MANOVA did

not indicate differences in the magnitude of myoelectric activity in any of the analyzed muscles (Figure

2). Concerning the myoelectric activity spectrum, the MANOVA indicated no significant differences for

the initial; intermediate and final exercise intervals in any of the observed muscles (Figure 3).

***INSERT FIGURES 2 AND 3 HERE***

DISCUSSION

In the present study, we analyzed the effect of verbal instruction on the temporal and spectral

domain of myoelectric activity of specific muscles at different intervals over a series of maximal

repetitions at a typical intensity used in resistance training (70%1RM). Previous studies showed that

verbal instruction to focus on specific muscles increased the myoelectric activity of these muscles when
 10

using low to moderate exercise loads (Calatayud et al., 2016; Snyder & Fry, 2012; Snyder & Leech,

2009). However, none of these studies analyzed the effect of verbal instruction at different intervals

throughout multiple repetitions.

Our results showed that verbal instruction does not have the same effect on muscle activity

throughout the set. For LD muscle activity, the verbal instruction promoted a 15.21% increase in

myoelectric activity during the initial repetitions, but yielded no significant increase at the middle

(8.01%) interval or at the end of the set (4.97%). One possible explanation for this very limited effect

comes from muscle fatigue over time, inducing both a reduced muscle firing rate and changes in the

recruitment of the motor units during the exercise (Contessa, De Luca, & Kline, 2016). Past research

showed that over a series, the electrical signal frequency shifted towards lower frequencies (Lowery,

Nolan, & O’malley, 2002; Masuda et al., 1999; Moritani et al., 1982). Our results showed a decrease in

median frequency for all muscles analyzed (approximately 16% for LD; 17% for TM; 11% for BB and

30% for PD) when we compared the initial and final repetitions, indicating the presence of fatigue at the

end of the exercise. As fatigue occurs and the firing rates of active muscle motor units decreased, the

neuromuscular system automatically recruited new motor units to maintain the desired muscle strength

(Heckman & Enoka, 2012). Thus, the higher the number of motor units recruited lowered the number of

available new motor units for the the verbal instructions to recruit, possibly also explaining the absence of

a verbal instruction effect at high exercise intensities (e.g., 80%) (Calatayud et al., 2016) when most

motor units have already been recruited (Heckman & Enoka, 2012).

Regarding the effect of verbal instructions on BB myoelectric activity, our results corroborate

those of Snyder and Leech (2009) who showed that, although untrained participants increased LD

myoelectric activity by 17.6% through verbal instruction during the lat pulldown exercise, they did not

reduce BB activity concomitantly. According to Snyder and Leech (2009), increases in activity of desired
 11

muscle does not occur with concomitant activity reduction from another. It seems that regardless of the

verbal instruction offered, the flexor elbow muscle continues to be recruited to perform this exercise.

Another of our substantive findings relates to the effect of verbal instruction on the relative

intensity of 70%1RM. Snyder and Leech (2009) showed that women without strength training experience

could increase LD myoelectric activity by 17.6% with verbal instruction to emphasize this muscle during

lat pulldown at 30%1RM. Other research showed that 11 football athletes who received verbal

instructions to emphasize the pectoral major and triceps brachii with a load of 50%1RM increased the

activity of these muscles by 22.3% and 25.7%, respectively (Snyder & Fry, 2012). Recent research by

Calatayud et al. (2016) showed that, during bench press exercise at 20, 40, 50 e 60%1RM (but not at

80%1RM), verbal instruction increased the myoelectric activity of the targeted muscles. Despite these

results, the effect of verbal instruction at 70%1RM intensity was unknown. We found that at 70%1RM,

verbal instruction increased the myoelectric activity of only the primary muscle and only in the initial

repetitions.

Regarding our novel measurement of the spectrum of myoelectric activity, we found no effect of

verbal instruction in the seated row exercise series performed with maximal repetitions. According to the

Bigland-Ritchie (1983) hypothesis, modifications of the myoelectric signal occur mainly due to the the

recruitment of new motor units, rather than to an increased firing rate of motor units. Based on this

hypothesis and considering our findings, the neuromuscular mechanism of verbal instruction appear to be

more related to voluntary control over the number of motor units recruited than motor unit firing rates.

This interpretation is suggested by the observed change in EMG magnitude in the absence of a change in

the motor units firing rate (i.e., no change in the signal spectrum).

Since the change in myoelectric signal occurred only in the first two repetitions, the use of the

verbal instruction does not seem to be sufficient to further increase the myoelectric activity of the target

muscle during later repetitions at higher effort. Our results are in contrast with broader generalizations
 12

regarding the verbal instruction effect for multiple exercise sets in previous studies. Our data suggest that

the exerciser’s ability to intentionally increase specific muscle activity is limited to submaximal exercise

intensity prior to muscle fatigue.

A limitation of the present study was our failure to perform a kinematic analysis. Even though

we used a metronome app to pace exercise as in previous studies (Calatayud et al., 2016; Daniels & Cook,

2017; Gentil et al., 2007), a kinematic analysis would have enabled us to insure that each repetition was

made with the same angle and velocity. Second, we estimated the maximum load using the Brzycki

(1993) equation; even though this equation can be considered an attractive alternative to the 1RM test for

estimating the maximal load values (Nascimento et al., 2007), the 1RM test is considered the gold

standard for assessing muscle strength (Levinger et al., 2009). Third, we verified the verbal instruction

effect on separated days, introducing the possibility that participants experienced a learning effect on the

second day from prior exposure to the seated row exercise, perhaps confounding the intended verbal

instructions influence. Future studies should include a control group and consider kinematic parameters to

better understand the effects of verbal instruction on muscle activity. Finally, our study included only

young men, limiting the generalization of our findings. Thus, the methods outlined in this study should be

applied to more diverse populations (e.g. women and older adults) to broaden the implications of these

results further.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING INTERESTS

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Alenabi, T., Jackson, M., Tetreault, P., & Begon, M. (2013). Electromyographic activity in the immobilized

shoulder musculature during ipsilateral elbow, wrist, and finger movements while wearing a shoulder

orthosis. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, 22(10), 1400–1407.

 13

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.04.007

Bigland-Ritchie, B., Johansson, R., Lippold, O. C., & Woods, J. J. (1983). Contractile speed and EMG

changes during fatigue of sustained maximal voluntary contractions. Journal of Neurophysiology,

50(1), 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.1983.50.1.313

Brzycki, M. (1993). Strength Testing—Predicting a One-Rep Max from Reps-to-Fatigue. Journal of

Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 64(1), 88–90.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07303084.1993.10606684

Calatayud, J., Vinstrup, J., Jakobsen, M. D., Sundstrup, E., Brandt, M., Jay, K., … Andersen, L. L. (2016).

Importance of mind-muscle connection during progressive resistance training. European Journal of

Applied Physiology, 116(3), 527–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-3305-7

Calatayud, J., Vinstrup, J., Jakobsen, M. D., Sundstrup, E., Colado, J. C., & Andersen, L. L. (2017). Mind-

muscle connection training principle: influence of muscle strength and training experience during a

pushing movement. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 117(7), 1445–1452.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-017-3637-6

Campenella, B., Mattacola, C., & Kimura, I. (2000). Effect of visual feedback and verbal encouragement

on concentric quadriceps and hamstrings peak torque of males and females. Isokinetics and Exercise

Science, 8(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.3233/IES-2000-0033

Contessa, P., De Luca, C. J., & Kline, J. C. (2016). The compensatory interaction between motor unit firing

behavior and muscle force during fatigue. Journal of Neurophysiology, 116(4), 1579–1585.

Daniels, R. J., & Cook, S. B. (2017). Effect of instructions on EMG during the bench press in trained and

untrained males. Human Movement Science, 55, 182–188.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2017.08.010

De Luca, C J. (1984). Myoelectrical manifestations of localized muscular fatigue in humans. Critical

Reviews in Biomedical Engineering, 11(4), 251–279.

 14

De Luca, Carlo J. (1997). The Use of Surface Electromyography in Biomechanics. Journal of Applied

Biomechanics, 13(2), 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1123/jab.13.2.135

De Luca, Carlo J. (2008). A practicum on the use of sEMG signals in movement sciences. Delsys Inc.

Escamilla, R. F., Babb, E., DeWitt, R., Jew, P., Kelleher, P., Burnham, T., … Imamura, R. T. (2006).

Electromyographic analysis of traditional and nontraditional abdominal exercises: implications for

rehabilitation and training. Physical Therapy, 86(5), 656–671.

Fleck, S., & Kraemer, W. (2014). Designing Resistance Training Programs (4th ed.). Campaing, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Fujita, R. A., Marchi, P. U. De, Silva, N. R. S., & Gomes, M. M. (2019). Verbal instruction does not change

myoelectric activity during seated row exercise in trained and untrained men. Motriz: Revista de

Educação Física, 25(4). https://doi.org/10.1590/s1980-6574201900040100

Gentil, P., Marques, V. A., Neto, J. P. P., Santos, A. C. G., Steele, J., Fisher, J., … Bottaro, M. (2018).

Using velocity loss for monitoring resistance training effort in a real-world setting. Applied

Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism = Physiologie Appliquee, Nutrition et Metabolisme, 43(8),

833–837. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2018-0011

Gentil, P., Oliveira, E., de Araujo Rocha Junior, V., do Carmo, J., & Bottaro, M. (2007). Effects of exercise

order on upper-body muscle activation and exercise performance. Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research, 21(4), 1082–1086. https://doi.org/10.1519/R-21216.1

Heckman, C. J., & Enoka, R. M. (2012). Motor Unit. In Comprehensive Physiology.

https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c100087

Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G. (2000). Development of recommendations for

SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,

10(5), 361–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1050-6411(00)00027-4

Jenkins, N. D. M., Housh, T. J., Bergstrom, H. C., Cochrane, K. C., Hill, E. C., Smith, C. M., … Cramer,
 15

J. T. (2015). Muscle activation during three sets to failure at 80 vs. 30% 1RM resistance exercise.

European Journal of Applied Physiology, 115(11), 2335–2347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00421-015-

3214-9

Konrad, P. (2005). The abc of emg. A Practical Introduction to Kinesiological Electromyography, 1, 30–

35.

Kraemer, W., & Fry, A. (1995). Strength Testing: Development and Evaluation of Methodology.

Physiological Assessment of Human Fitness, 115–138.

Lehman, G. J., Buchan, D. D., Lundy, A., Myers, N., & Nalborczyk, A. (2004). Variations in muscle

activation levels during traditional latissimus dorsi weight training exercises: An experimental study.

Dynamic Medicine : DM, 3, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-5918-3-4

LeSuer, D. A., McCormick, J. H., Mayhew, J. L., Wasserstein, R. L., & Arnold, M. D. (1997). The

Accuracy of Prediction Equations for Estimating 1-RM Performance in the Bench Press, Squat, and

Deadlift. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 11(4).

Levinger, I., Goodman, C., Hare, D. L., Jerums, G., Toia, D., & Selig, S. (2009). The reliability of the 1RM

strength test for untrained middle-aged individuals. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 12(2),

310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2007.10.007

Lowery, M., Nolan, P., & O’malley, M. (2002). Electromyogram median frequency, spectral compression

and muscle fibre conduction velocity during sustained sub-maximal contraction of the brachioradialis

muscle. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 12(2), 111–118.

Magill, R. A. (2008). Aprendizagem motora: conceitos e aplicações. Edgard Blücher.

Marchant, D. C., Greig, M., & Scott, C. (2009). Attentional focusing instructions influence force production

and muscular activity during isokinetic elbow flexions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning

Research, 23(8), 2358–2366. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181b8d1e5

Masuda, K., Masuda, T., Sadoyama, T., Inaki, M., & Katsuta, S. (1999). Changes in surface EMG
 16

parameters during static and dynamic fatiguing contractions. Journal of Electromyography and

Kinesiology : Official Journal of the International Society of Electrophysiological Kinesiology, 9(1),

39–46.

McNair, P. J., Depledge, J., Brettkelly, M., & Stanley, S. N. (1996). Verbal encouragement: effects on

maximum effort voluntary muscle: action. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 30(3), 243–245.

Moritani, T., Nagata, A., & Muro, M. (1982). Electromyographic manifestations of muscular fatigue.

Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 14(3), 198–202.

Nascimento, M. A. do, Cyrino, E. S., Nakamura, F. Y., Romanzini, M., Pianca, H. J. C., & Queiróga, M.

R. (2007). Validation of the Brzycki equation for the estimation of 1-RM in the bench press. Revista

Brasileira de Medicina Do Esporte, 13(1), 47–50.

Paoli, A., Mancin, L., Saoncella, M., Grigoletto, D., Pacelli, F. Q., Zamparo, P., … Marcolin, G. (2019).

Mind-muscle connection: effects of verbal instructions on muscle activity during bench press

exercise. European Journal of Translational Myology, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2019.8250

Ratamess, N. A. (2011). ACSM’s foundations of strength training and conditioning. Wolters Kluwer

Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Schoenfeld, B. J. (2013). Potential mechanisms for a role of metabolic stress in hypertrophic adaptations to

resistance training. Sports Medicine, 43(3), 179–194.

Schoenfeld, B., Sonmez, R. G. T., Kolber, M. J., Contreras, B., Harris, R., & Ozen, S. (2013). Effect of

hand position on EMG activity of the posterior shoulder musculature during a horizontal abduction

exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 27(10), 2644–2649.

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e318281e1e9

Snyder, B. J., & Fry, W. R. (2012). Effect of verbal instruction on muscle activity during the bench press

exercise. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 26(9), 2394–2400.

https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e31823f8d11
 17

Snyder, B. J., & Leech, J. R. (2009). Voluntary increase in latissimus dorsi muscle activity during the lat

pull-down following expert instruction. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 23(8), 2204–

2209. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181bb7213

Steele, J., Fisher, J., Giessing, J., & Gentil, P. (2017). Clarity in reporting terminology and definitions of

set endpoints in resistance training. Muscle & Nerve, 56(3), 368–374.

Vance, J., Wulf, G., Tollner, T., McNevin, N., & Mercer, J. (2004). EMG activity as a function of the

performer’s focus of attention. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(4), 450–459.

https://doi.org/10.3200/JMBR.36.4.450-459

Wulf, G, & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: a review.

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 648–660. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196201

Wulf, Gabriele. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: a review of 15 years. International Review

of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2012.723728

 18

FIGURES

Figure 1. Positioning of the participant during the execution of the seated row exercise. A) represents the

initial positioning and B) represents the positioning at the end of each movement.
 19

Figure 2. Root mean square myoelectric activity as a percent of maximum isometric activity during

seated row exercise at 70% 1RM with no verbal instructions (NONE) and with verbal instructions (VI) in:

A) initials repetitions; B) intermediate repetitions and C) final repetitions.

LD = latissimus dorsi; TM = teres major; BB = biceps brachii and PD = posterior deltoid.

#Indicates a significant difference from No instructions (p < 0.05).

Figure 3. Median frequency of myoelectric activity during seated row exercise at 70% 1RM with no

verbal instructions (NONE) and with verbal instructions (VI) in: A) initials repetitions; B) intermediate

repetitions and C) final repetitions.

LD = latissimus dorsi; TM = teres major; BB = biceps brachii and PD = posterior deltoid.

View publication stats