The Effects Of Core Strength Training On Visual Evoked Potential And Event Related Potential In College Students

Objective: Core strength training is a kind of new training concept, and is a newmethod of physical training. It’s aim is to highlight the characteristics of improvingthe transmission of power, coordinating and controlling muscle power, to reflect thenew ideas of body integrity, much more muscle groups in multiple dimensionsparticipating in sports at the same time; It is in the unstable condition, adding the"instability" in training, especially the training of core parts of the small muscles,which is in order to train the control ability of athletes. It is different from traditionalwaist and abdominal strength training. Core strength emphasizes controlling thestability of the pelvis and torso muscles, creating onset for fulcrum movement, andcoordinating the power of the arms to make, transmission and control best.Corestrength training, the author of this paper is the Swiss ball to do push-ups and sit-upson two kinds of strength training compared with the traditional push ups and sit upsboth strength training and the control group. Using the neural electrophysiologicalmethod, observed the impact of seven weeks core strength training on visual evokedpotential and event related potential P300, to evaluate the influence law of corestrength training on brain function. Methods:35healthy male college students ofShandong normal university student from level2010were selected as subjects.Subjects were randomly divided into3groups: core strength training group (n=13),traditional strength training group (n=11) and the control group (n=11). The visualevoked potential and the visual event related potential was recorded and analyzedwith NDI-200neural electricity tester (Poseidon) in resting condition before (pre-test) and after (post-test)7-week training period. Respectively Observation indexes N75,P100, N145latency, amplitude and peak-to-peak values and Pz, Cz and Fz sites oflatency, amplitude, and reaction time. Exercise prescription: In the control groupsubjects didn’t do any related special training; The subjects in core strength traininggroup did push-up and curl-up on Swiss Ball (GoFit Swiss Ball,75cm), and those intraditional strength training group did push-up and curl-up on the ground; Subjects inboth strength training group did exercises for7weeks,3times/week,30min/time,60seach type with2s/shot,3groups each type, a total of6groups,5min intervalsbetween groups. Results:1. N75amplitude was significantly reduced (P <0.05)compared with after seven weeks and after four weeks of training Swiss ball corestrength training in core strength training group. N75peak-to-peak value wassignificantly decreased (P <0.05) compared with before and after seven weeks oftraining. P100amplitude change trend is first increases then decreases after fourweeks and seven weeks in core strength training group and traditional training group;while P100amplitude dynamic changes were reduced gradually during the sevenweeks in the control group. P100peak-to-peak value was increased significantly (P <0.05) compared four weeks training with before training in traditional training group.N145latency period were significantly longer (P <0.05) compared seven weekstraining with before training in Core strength training group, the traditional traininggroup and control group.2. The P300latency at Pz site was significantly extended (P<0.05) after seven weeks Swiss ball core strength training in core strength traininggroup. While in traditional strength training group the P300amplitude at Pz site wassignificantly increased (P <0.05) after seven weeks traditional strength training on theground; and P300response at Pz site was significantly shortened (P <0.05). Afterseven weeks Swiss ball core strength training in core strength training group, P300amplitude at Cz site was significantly increased (P <0.01), compared with aroundfour weeks, was also significantly increased (P <0.05); P300amplitude at Cz site wassignificantly increased (P <0.05) after four weeks training in traditional strengthtraining group; P300amplitude at Cz site was significantly increased (P <0.05) afterseven weeks in control point measurement. P300reaction time at Cz site was significantly shortened (P <0.05) after seven weeks Swiss ball core strength trainingin core strength training group. Conclusion:1. Visual evoked potential of corestrength training does not have certain sensitivity, core strength training obviouslycan’t cause visual evoked potentials latency, amplitude and peak-to-peak value change.Visual evoked potential may not as neurophysiology indicator top evaluate the corestrength exercise or training effect.2. Different methods of strength training, quietstate of visual event related potential under the influence of different test points isdifferent, as the core strength training did add the unstable factors, which could causedistraction of attention while strength training. The results suggested that corestrength training could reduce the subjects’ cognitive processing speed and decreasethe allocation of attention resource compared with the traditional strength training.