Literature DB >> 20217400

Changes in corticospinal excitability evoked by common peroneal nerve stimulation depend on stimulation frequency.

C S Mang1, O Lagerquist, D F Collins.   

Abstract

The afferent volley generated during neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can increase the excitability of the human corticospinal (CS) pathway. This study was designed to determine the effect of different frequencies of NMES applied over the common peroneal nerve on changes in CS excitability for the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle. We hypothesized that higher frequencies of stimulation would produce larger increases in CS excitability than lower frequencies. NMES was applied at 10, 50, 100, or 200 Hz during separate sessions held at least 48 h apart. The stimulation was delivered in a 20 s on, 20 s off cycle for 40 min using a 1 ms pulse width. The intensity of stimulation was set to evoke an M-wave in response to a single pulse that was 15% of the maximal M-wave. CS excitability was evaluated by the amplitude of motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in TA evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. MEPs were recorded immediately before and after the 40 min of NMES and in each 20 s "off" period. For each subject, MEPs recorded during three successive "off" periods were averaged together (n = 9 MEPs), providing a temporal resolution of 2 min for assessing changes in CS excitability. When delivering NMES at 100 Hz, MEPs became significantly elevated from those evoked before the stimulation at the 24th min, and there was a twofold increase in MEP amplitude after 40 min. NMES delivered at 10, 50, and 200 Hz did not significantly alter MEP amplitude. The amplitude of MEPs evoked in soleus and vastus medialis followed similar patterns as those evoked simultaneously in TA, but these changes were mostly not of statistical significance. There were no changes in the ratio of maximal H-reflex to maximal M-wave in TA or soleus. These experiments demonstrate a frequency-dependent effect of NMES on CS excitability for TA and show that, under the conditions of the present study, 100-Hz stimulation was more effective than 10, 50, and 200 Hz. This effect of NMES on CS excitability was strongest in the stimulated muscle and may be mediated primarily at a supraspinal level. These results contribute to a growing body of knowledge about how the afferent volley generated during NMES influences the CNS and have implications for identifying optimal NMES parameters to augment CS excitability for rehabilitation of dorsiflexion after CNS injury.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20217400     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-010-2202-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  41 in total

1.  Long-latency reflexes in contracted hand and foot muscles and their relations to somatosensory evoked potentials and transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex.

Authors:  K Kurusu; J Kitamura
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Modulation of motor cortex excitability by median nerve and digit stimulation.

Authors:  R Chen; B Corwell; M Hallett
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine motor skills.

Authors:  A Pascual-Leone; D Nguyet; L G Cohen; J P Brasil-Neto; A Cammarota; M Hallett
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1995-09       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice.

Authors:  J Classen; J Liepert; S P Wise; M Hallett; L G Cohen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Induction of persistent changes in the organisation of the human motor cortex.

Authors:  Darrin R McKay; Michael C Ridding; Philip D Thompson; Timothy S Miles
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-01-26       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Changes in corticomotor representations induced by prolonged peripheral nerve stimulation in humans.

Authors:  M C Ridding; D R McKay; P D Thompson; T S Miles
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.708

7.  Input-increase and input-decrease types of cortical reorganization after upper extremity amputation in humans.

Authors:  T Elbert; A Sterr; H Flor; B Rockstroh; S Knecht; C Pantev; C Wienbruch; E Taub
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Motor cortex excitability following repetitive electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve depends on the voluntary drive.

Authors:  Svetlana Khaslavskaia; Thomas Sinkjaer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-02-09       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Increase in tibialis anterior motor cortex excitability following repetitive electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve.

Authors:  Svetlana Khaslavskaia; Michel Ladouceur; Thomas Sinkjaer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2002-06-15       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Rapid modulation of human cortical motor outputs following ischaemic nerve block.

Authors:  J P Brasil-Neto; J Valls-Solé; A Pascual-Leone; A Cammarota; V E Amassian; R Cracco; P Maccabee; J Cracco; M Hallett; L G Cohen
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  24 in total

1.  Neuromuscular electrical stimulation has a global effect on corticospinal excitability for leg muscles and a focused effect for hand muscles.

Authors:  C S Mang; J M Clair; D F Collins
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Modulation of motor unit activity in biceps brachii by neuromuscular electrical stimulation applied to the contralateral arm.

Authors:  Ioannis G Amiridis; Diba Mani; Awad Almuklass; Boris Matkowski; Jeffrey R Gould; Roger M Enoka
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2015-04-30

Review 3.  Locomotor activities as a way of inducing neuroplasticity: insights from conventional approaches and perspectives on eccentric exercises.

Authors:  Pierre Clos; Romuald Lepers; Yoann M Garnier
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  High-frequency neuromuscular electrical stimulation modulates interhemispheric inhibition in healthy humans.

Authors:  Nicolas Gueugneau; Sidney Grosprêtre; Paul Stapley; Romuald Lepers
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 5.  Neuromuscular electrical stimulation: implications of the electrically evoked sensory volley.

Authors:  A J Bergquist; J M Clair; O Lagerquist; C S Mang; Y Okuma; D F Collins
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2011-07-30       Impact factor: 3.078

6.  Changes in spinal but not cortical excitability following combined electrical stimulation of the tibial nerve and voluntary plantar-flexion.

Authors:  Olle Lagerquist; Cameron S Mang; David F Collins
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Short-term facilitation effects elicited by cortical priming through theta burst stimulation and functional electrical stimulation of upper-limb muscles.

Authors:  Na Cao; Atsushi Sasaki; Akiko Yuasa; Milos R Popovic; Matija Milosevic; Kimitaka Nakazawa
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Neuromuscular electrical stimulation and exercise for reducing trapezius muscle dysfunction in survivors of head and neck cancer: a case-series report.

Authors:  Evan R L Baldwin; Terri D Baldwin; Josh S Lancaster; Margaret L McNeely; David F Collins
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 1.037

9.  Enhanced somatosensory feedback modulates cutaneous reflexes in arm muscles during self-triggered or prolonged stimulation.

Authors:  Yao Sun; Gregory E P Pearcey; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-02       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Alteration of synergistic muscle activity following neuromuscular electrical stimulation of one muscle.

Authors:  Norman Stutzig; Tobias Siebert; Urs Granacher; Reinhard Blickhan
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 2.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.