| Literature DB >> 26417459 |
Ying-Zu Huang1, Yao-Shun Chang2, Miao-Ju Hsu3, Alice M K Wong4, Ya-Ju Chang5.
Abstract
Disrupted triphasic electromyography (EMG) patterns of agonist and antagonist muscle pairs during fast goal-directed movements have been found in patients with hypermetria. Since peripheral electrical stimulation (ES) and motor training may modulate motor cortical excitability through plasticity mechanisms, we aimed to investigate whether temporal ES-assisted movement training could influence premovement cortical excitability and alleviate hypermetria in patients with spinal cerebellar ataxia (SCA). The EMG of the agonist extensor carpi radialis muscle and antagonist flexor carpi radialis muscle, premovement motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the flexor carpi radialis muscle, and the constant and variable errors of movements were assessed before and after 4 weeks of ES-assisted fast goal-directed wrist extension training in the training group and of general health education in the control group. After training, the premovement MEPs of the antagonist muscle were facilitated at 50 ms before the onset of movement. In addition, the EMG onset latency of the antagonist muscle shifted earlier and the constant error decreased significantly. In summary, temporal ES-assisted training alleviated hypermetria by restoring antagonist premovement and temporal triphasic EMG patterns in SCA patients. This technique may be applied to treat hypermetria in cerebellar disorders. (This trial is registered with NCT01983670.).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26417459 PMCID: PMC4568379 DOI: 10.1155/2015/462182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neural Plast ISSN: 1687-5443 Impact factor: 3.599
Basic data of the participants.
| Groups |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Training | Control | ||
| Number | 10 | 10 | — |
| Age (years) | 47 ± 8 | 51 ± 9 | 0.34 |
| Gender (F/M) | 8/2 | 5/5 | — |
| Onset duration (ms) | 8.60 ± 6.16 | 10.20 ± 2.36 | 0.48 |
| Type III SCA ( | Type III SCA ( | ||
| Type VI SCA ( | Unidentified ( | ||
| Unidentified ( | |||
| Finger-to-nose (times per 15 sec) | 11.2 ± 2.5 | 10.7 ± 2.4 | 0.66 |
| AG1-ANT latency (ms) | 88.84 ± 24.34 | 81.55 ± 31.12 | 0.57 |
| CE (%) | 13.43 ± 3.81 | 15.93 ± 6.39 | 0.3 |
| VE (%) | 3.91 ± 1.37 | 4.49 ± 2.05 | 0.46 |
Figure 1The flowchart of the study.
Stimulation protocol.
| Program | Reaction time of the subjects (ms) | Stimulation intervals (ms after the go-signal) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Less than 200 | 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220 |
|
| ||
| 2 | 180–250 | 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250 |
|
| ||
| 3 | 200–270 | 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270 |
|
| ||
| 4 | 240–310 | 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220, 230, 240, 250, 260, 270, 280, 290, 300, 310 |
Figure 2The procedure of the premovement MEP test.
Figure 3The latency of antagonist muscle activation (AG1-ANT latency) during fast goal-directed wrist extension movement in the training group (a) and the control group (b). The upper panel shows the group means and standard deviations. The lower panel shows the individual means and standard deviations. The black circle and bars indicate before training, and the gray circle and bars indicate after 4 weeks of training. P > 0.05 before and after 4 weeks.
Figure 4The normalized MEP amplitudes before onset latency of the antagonist muscle EMG of fast goal-directed wrist extension movement in the training group (a) and the control group (b). The black circles indicate the group mean before training, and the white circles indicate the group mean after the 4-week training program. The error bars indicate the standard deviations.
Group means ± standard deviation of premovement MEP, AG1-ANT latency, CE, and VE.
| Time | Groups | Statistical analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training before | Training after | Control group before | Control group after | Group × time interaction | ||
|
|
| |||||
| MEP (% of control MEP) | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| −120 | 110.0 ± 30.9 | 116.6 ± 22.5 | 149.0 ± 84.0 | 118.4 ± 14.1 | 1.38 | 0.26 |
| −110 | 107.5 ± 25.9 | 117.8 ± 15.5 | 136.9 ± 72.1 | 123.1 ± 22.6 | 1.25 | 0.28 |
| −100 | 103.4 ± 22.4 | 119.0 ± 17.7 | 134.9 ± 50.1 | 119.8 ± 27.1 | 3.87 | 0.07 |
| −90 | 99.9 ± 17.5 | 118.8 ± 16.7 | 133.9 ± 32.2 | 122.5 ± 51.4 | 3.33 | 0.09 |
| −80 | 94.8 ± 12.5 | 111.3 ± 47.2 | 130.8 ± 31.9 | 117.3 ± 63.8 | 2.15 | 0.16 |
| −70 | 94.3 ± 12.5 | 106.0 ± 29.9 | 102.6 ± 27.4 | 122.4 ± 48.9 | 0.14 | 0.71 |
| −60 | 92.1 ± 13.7 | 107.9 ± 23.2 | 91.0 ± 40.8 | 108.7 ± 33.1 | 0.02 | 0.89 |
| −50 | 93.0 ± 24.3 | 126.2 ± 23.8∗ | 89.2 ± 37.6 | 85.8 ± 21.8 | 5.4 | 0.03∗ |
| −40 | 93.8 ± 27.9 | 108.9 ± 29.9 | 91.5 ± 52.0 | 75.1 ± 29.3 | 2.17 | 0.16 |
| −30 | 87.2 ± 22.7 | 96.8 ± 30.2 | 65.9 ± 31.8 | 67.1 ± 19.4 | 0.22 | 0.65 |
| −20 | 93.6 ± 29.1 | 105.4 ± 39.8 | 61.8 ± 32.8 | 61.7 ± 26.4 | 0.33 | 0.57 |
| −10 | 82.0 ± 27.4 | 103.1 ± 28.9 | 61.8 ± 37.8 | 65.2 ± 36.9 | 0.96 | 0.34 |
| 0 | 81.1 ± 21.6 | 105.4 ± 34.2 | 56.9 ± 32.5 | 62.7 ± 40.5 | 0.77 | 0.39 |
|
| ||||||
| AG1-ANT latency (ms) | 88.9 ± 24.3 | 64.7 ± 34.6∗ | 81.6 ± 31.1 | 92.2 ± 40.1 | 10.65 | 0.01∗ |
|
| ||||||
| CE (%) | 13.4 ± 3.8 | 10.2 ± 3.5∗ | 15.9 ± 6.4 | 18.2 ± 5.0 | 5.99 | 0.02∗ |
| VE (%) | 3.9 ± 1.4 | 2.5 ± 0.7 | 4.5 ± 2.1 | 4.8 ± 1.6 | 3.27 | 0.09 |
∗ is significantly different from pretraining.
Figure 5The group means and standard deviations of the CE (a) and the VE (b) of the training group (black bars) and the control group (gray bars) before and after 4 weeks.