Literature DB >> 26289462

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

Davis A Forman1, Devin T G Philpott1, Duane C Button2, Kevin E Power3.   

Abstract

This is the first study to report the influence of different cadences on the modulation of supraspinal and spinal excitability during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials and transmastoid electrical stimulation-induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps brachii at two separate positions corresponding to elbow flexion and extension (6 and 12 o'clock relative to a clock face, respectively) while arm cycling at 30, 60 and 90 rpm. Motor evoked potential amplitudes increased significantly as cadence increased during both elbow flexion (P < 0.001) and extension (P = 0.027). CMEP amplitudes also increased with cadence during elbow flexion (P < 0.01); however, the opposite occurred during elbow extension (i.e., decreased CMEP amplitude; P = 0.01). The data indicate an overall increase in the excitability of corticospinal neurons which ultimately project to biceps brachii throughout arm cycling as cadence increased. Conversely, changes in spinal excitability as cadence increased were phase dependent (i.e., increased during elbow flexion and decreased during elbow extension). Phase- and cadence-dependent changes in spinal excitability are suggested to be mediated via changes in the balance of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic input to the motor pool, as opposed to changes in the intrinsic properties of spinal motoneurons.
Copyright © 2015 the American Physiological Society.

Keywords:  CMEP; MEP; motoneuron; transcranial; transmastoid

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26289462      PMCID: PMC4609762          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00418.2015

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


  44 in total

1.  Fatiguing intermittent lower limb exercise influences corticospinal and corticocortical excitability in the nonexercised upper limb.

Authors:  Kyohei Takahashi; Atsuo Maruyama; Kohji Hirakoba; Masato Maeda; Seiji Etoh; Kazumi Kawahira; John C Rothwell
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 8.955

2.  Corticospinal contributions to lower limb muscle activity during cycling in humans.

Authors:  Simranjit K Sidhu; Ben W Hoffman; Andrew G Cresswell; Timothy J Carroll
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  Premovement Changes in Corticospinal Excitability of the Biceps Brachii are Not Different Between Arm Cycling and an Intensity-Matched Tonic Contraction.

Authors:  David B Copithorne; Davis A Forman; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Motor Control       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 1.422

4.  Corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii is higher during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction.

Authors:  Davis Forman; Amita Raj; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-06-03       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Increased corticospinal excitability prior to arm cycling is due to enhanced supraspinal but not spinal motoneurone excitability.

Authors:  Kevin E Power; David B Copithorne
Journal:  Appl Physiol Nutr Metab       Date:  2013-05-28       Impact factor: 2.665

6.  Intraspinally mediated state-dependent enhancement of motoneurone excitability during fictive scratch in the adult decerebrate cat.

Authors:  Kevin E Power; David A McCrea; Brent Fedirchuk
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2010-06-14       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  Heteronymous reflex connections in human upper limb muscles in response to stretch of forearm muscles.

Authors:  Curtis D Manning; Parveen Bawa
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Push-pull control of motor output.

Authors:  Michael D Johnson; Allison S Hyngstrom; Marin Manuel; C J Heckman
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2012-03-28       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 9.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

10.  Differences in supraspinal and spinal excitability during various force outputs of the biceps brachii in chronic- and non-resistance trained individuals.

Authors:  Gregory E P Pearcey; Kevin E Power; Duane C Button
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

2.  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

Review 3.  Sherlock Holmes and the curious case of the human locomotor central pattern generator.

Authors:  Taryn Klarner; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Interhemispheric inhibition is different during arm cycling than a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction.

Authors:  Chris T Compton; Evan J Lockyer; Ryan J Benson; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.064

5.  Location-specific cutaneous electrical stimulation of the footsole modulates corticospinal excitability to the plantarflexors and dorsiflexors during standing.

Authors:  Gagan Gill; Davis A Forman; Joanna E Reeves; Janet L Taylor; Leah R Bent
Journal:  Physiol Rep       Date:  2022-07

6.  Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion.

Authors:  Davis A Forman; Mark Richards; Garrick N Forman; Michael W R Holmes; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2016-10-25       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling.

Authors:  Alyssa-Joy Spence; Lynsey R Alcock; Evan J Lockyer; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2016-12-15

8.  Corticospinal-Evoked Responses from the Biceps Brachii during Arm Cycling across Multiple Power Outputs.

Authors:  Evan J Lockyer; Katarina Hosel; Anna P Nippard; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2019-08-19

9.  The Effect of Crank Resistance on Arm Configuration and Muscle Activation Variances in Arm Cycling Movements.

Authors:  Mariann Mravcsik; Lilla Botzheim; Norbert Zentai; Davide Piovesan; Jozsef Laczko
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 2.193

10.  Motor cortical circuits contribute to crossed facilitation of trunk muscles induced by rhythmic arm movement.

Authors:  Shin-Yi Chiou; Laura Morris; Weidong Gou; Emma Alexander; Eliot Gay
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.