Literature DB >> 16251263

Corticospinal excitability is lower during rhythmic arm movement than during tonic contraction.

Timothy J Carroll1, Evan R L Baldwin, David F Collins, E Paul Zehr.   

Abstract

Humans perform rhythmic, locomotor movements with the arms and legs every day. Studies using reflexes to probe the functional role of the CNS suggest that spinal circuits are an important part of the neural control system for rhythmic arm cycling and walking. Here, by studying motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in response to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex, and H-reflexes induced by electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves, we show a reduction in corticospinal excitability during rhythmic arm movement compared with tonic, voluntary contraction. Responses were compared between arm cycling and tonic contraction at four positions, while participants generated similar levels of muscle activity. Both H-reflexes and MEPs were significantly smaller during arm cycling than during tonic contraction at the midpoint of arm flexion (F = 13.51, P = 0.006; F = 11.83, P = 0.009). Subthreshold TMS significantly facilitated the FCR H-reflex during tonic contractions, but did not significantly modulate H-reflex amplitude during arm cycling. The data indicate a reduction in the responsiveness of cells constituting the fast, monosynaptic, corticospinal pathway during arm cycling and suggest that the motor cortex may contribute less to motor drive during rhythmic arm movement than during tonic, voluntary contraction. Our results are consistent with the idea that subcortical regions contribute to the control of rhythmic arm movements despite highly developed corticospinal projections to the human upper limb.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16251263     DOI: 10.1152/jn.00684.2005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  21 in total

1.  Dissociation between neuronal activity in sensorimotor cortex and hand movement revealed as a function of movement rate.

Authors:  Dora Hermes; Jeroen C W Siero; Erik J Aarnoutse; Frans S S Leijten; Natalia Petridou; Nick F Ramsey
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-07-11       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  Cadence-dependent changes in corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii during arm cycling.

Authors:  Davis A Forman; Devin T G Philpott; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Intensity-dependent alterations in the excitability of cortical and spinal projections to the knee extensors during isometric and locomotor exercise.

Authors:  J C Weavil; S K Sidhu; T S Mangum; R S Richardson; M Amann
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2015-04-15       Impact factor: 3.619

4.  Walking performance and its recovery in chronic stroke in relation to extent of lesion overlap with the descending motor tract.

Authors:  H Dawes; C Enzinger; H Johansen-Berg; M Bogdanovic; C Guy; J Collett; H Izadi; C Stagg; D Wade; P M Matthews
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Modulation of corticospinal input to the legs by arm and leg cycling in people with incomplete spinal cord injury.

Authors:  R Zhou; L Alvarado; S Kim; S L Chong; V K Mushahwar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-07-12       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent.

Authors:  E J Lockyer; R J Benson; A P Hynes; L R Alcock; A J Spence; D C Button; K E Power
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Spinal and cortical activity-dependent plasticity following learning of complex arm movements in humans.

Authors:  T Winkler; B Mergner; J Szecsi; A Bender; A Straube
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Differences in corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii between arm cycling and tonic contraction are not evident at the immediate onset of movement.

Authors:  Davis A Forman; Devin T G Philpott; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-04-01       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Effects of motor skill learning on reciprocal inhibition.

Authors:  Mary Kay Floeter; Laura E Danielian; Yong Kyun Kim
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 2.406

10.  Upper limb effort does not increase maximal voluntary muscle activation in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Helen J Huang; Daniel P Ferris
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 3.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.