Patrick M Cowley1, Brian C Clark2, Lori L Ploutz-Snyder2. 1. Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science at Syracuse University, 201 Women's Building, 820 Comstock Ave, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA. Electronic address: pmcowley@syr.edu. 2. Musculoskeletal Research Laboratory, Department of Exercise Science at Syracuse University, 201 Women's Building, 820 Comstock Ave, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Data on whether motor imagery (MI) modulates spinal excitability are equivocal. The purpose of this study was to determine if imagined muscle contractions of the left plantar flexor (PF) alter spinal excitability, and if so, to determine whether this alteration is intensity dependent and/or localized to the target muscles. Our research questions required two experiments. METHODS: In experiment 1, 16 healthy volunteers performed imagined muscle contractions using a kinesthetic approach with their left PF at 25% and 100% of imagined effort (IE). The soleus H-reflex was evoked during three conditions, which were separated by about 15s: rest (preceding MI), during MI, and recovery (following the cessation of MI). In experiment 2, a subset of subjects from experiment 1 performed MI with their left PF at 100% of IE, while either the soleus or flexor carpi radialis (FCR) H-reflex was measured. RESULTS: In experiment 1, we observed a facilitation of soleus H-wave amplitude during MI compared to the rest and recovery conditions (p<0.05). Furthermore, the soleus H-wave amplitude was greater during 100% than 25% of IE (p<0.05). In experiment 2, soleus and FCR H-wave amplitude increased during imagined muscle contractions of the left PF (p<0.05). These changes were independent of voluntary muscle activity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest MI can increase spinal excitability by the intensity of imagined effort, but this effect is not fully localized to the task specific muscle. SIGNIFICANCE: These data provide evidence that MI can increase spinal excitability in healthy subjects, which suggests future studies are warranted to examine the clinical relevance of this effect. These studies are needed to help establish a therapeutic theory by which to advance motor function rehabilitation using MI.
OBJECTIVE: Data on whether motor imagery (MI) modulates spinal excitability are equivocal. The purpose of this study was to determine if imagined muscle contractions of the left plantar flexor (PF) alter spinal excitability, and if so, to determine whether this alteration is intensity dependent and/or localized to the target muscles. Our research questions required two experiments. METHODS: In experiment 1, 16 healthy volunteers performed imagined muscle contractions using a kinesthetic approach with their left PF at 25% and 100% of imagined effort (IE). The soleus H-reflex was evoked during three conditions, which were separated by about 15s: rest (preceding MI), during MI, and recovery (following the cessation of MI). In experiment 2, a subset of subjects from experiment 1 performed MI with their left PF at 100% of IE, while either the soleus or flexor carpi radialis (FCR) H-reflex was measured. RESULTS: In experiment 1, we observed a facilitation of soleus H-wave amplitude during MI compared to the rest and recovery conditions (p<0.05). Furthermore, the soleus H-wave amplitude was greater during 100% than 25% of IE (p<0.05). In experiment 2, soleus and FCR H-wave amplitude increased during imagined muscle contractions of the left PF (p<0.05). These changes were independent of voluntary muscle activity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest MI can increase spinal excitability by the intensity of imagined effort, but this effect is not fully localized to the task specific muscle. SIGNIFICANCE: These data provide evidence that MI can increase spinal excitability in healthy subjects, which suggests future studies are warranted to examine the clinical relevance of this effect. These studies are needed to help establish a therapeutic theory by which to advance motor function rehabilitation using MI.
Authors: Marco Godi; Marica Giardini; Antonio Nardone; Anna Maria Turcato; Marco Caligari; Fabrizio Pisano; Marco Schieppati Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Aiko K Thompson; Hannah Carruth; Rachel Haywood; N Jeremy Hill; William A Sarnacki; Lynn M McCane; Jonathan R Wolpaw; Dennis J McFarland Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 4.677