Literature DB >> 26892298

Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation enhances time to task failure of a submaximal contraction of elbow flexors without changing corticospinal excitability.

A Abdelmoula1, S Baudry2, J Duchateau1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The increase in corticospinal excitability in response to anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (a-tDCS) may contribute to decrease neuromuscular fatigability.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of a-tDCS on neuromuscular fatigability in relation with changes in corticospinal excitability.
METHODS: Eleven adults participated in two experimental sessions consisting of two submaximal voluntary contractions (35% maximal torque) performed to failure, one hour apart with the right elbow flexor muscles. Sham stimulation (90 s) and a-tDCS (10 min) were applied in two separate sessions 10 min prior to the second fatiguing contraction. Corticospinal excitability was assessed by recording motor-evoked potential (MEP), elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex, in biceps brachii, brachioradialis and triceps brachii during the first (C1) and second (C2) fatiguing contractions. The silent period (SP) in electromyogramme (EMG) that followed MEP was also recorded for biceps brachii and brachioradialis.
RESULTS: Time to failure was briefer for C2 than C1 in both experimental sessions, but the decrease was less pronounced after a-tDCS (-14.4±12.7%) than sham stimulation (-23.3±11.9%; p=0.04). MEP amplitude (+9.7±4.0%) and SP duration (+22.5±12.8%) in biceps brachii and brachioradialis increased significantly (p<0.05) during C1 and C2, but to a similar extent in both sessions (p>0.05). A similar result was observed for MEP amplitude in triceps brachii. No association was found between changes in time to task failure of C2 and corticospinal excitability.
CONCLUSION: The reduced neuromuscular fatigability induced by a-tDCS does not rely on changes in the excitability of the corticospinal pathway of both agonist and antagonist muscles.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  electromyography; fatigue; motor-evoked potential; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26892298     DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.02.025

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroscience        ISSN: 0306-4522            Impact factor:   3.590


  23 in total

1.  Remote muscle priming anodal transcranial direct current stimulation attenuates short interval intracortical inhibition and increases time to task failure of a constant workload cycling exercise.

Authors:  Simranjit K Sidhu
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation does not influence the neural adjustments associated with fatiguing contractions in a hand muscle.

Authors:  Achraf Abdelmoula; Stéphane Baudry; Jacques Duchateau
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-11-13       Impact factor: 3.078

3.  Increased leg muscle fatigability during 2 mA and 4 mA transcranial direct current stimulation over the left motor cortex.

Authors:  Craig D Workman; John Kamholz; Thorsten Rudroff
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 4.  Noninvasive brain stimulation enhances sustained muscle contractions by reducing neuromuscular fatigue: implications for rehabilitation.

Authors:  David A Cunningham
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-07-20       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Bilateral extracephalic transcranial direct current stimulation improves endurance performance in healthy individuals.

Authors:  L Angius; A R Mauger; J Hopker; A Pascual-Leone; E Santarnecchi; S M Marcora
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  The effects of elevated pain inhibition on endurance exercise performance.

Authors:  Andrew Flood; Gordon Waddington; Richard J Keegan; Kevin G Thompson; Stuart Cathcart
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2017-03-02       Impact factor: 2.984

7.  Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation and Sports Performance.

Authors:  Dylan J Edwards; Mar Cortes; Susan Wortman-Jutt; David Putrino; Marom Bikson; Gary Thickbroom; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.169

Review 8.  The Ergogenic Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Exercise Performance.

Authors:  Luca Angius; James Hopker; Alexis R Mauger
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2017-02-14       Impact factor: 4.566

9.  Different Effects of 2 mA and 4 mA Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Muscle Activity and Torque in a Maximal Isokinetic Fatigue Task.

Authors:  Craig David Workman; Alexandra C Fietsam; Thorsten Rudroff
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation reduces motor slowing in athletes and non-athletes.

Authors:  Oliver Seidel-Marzi; Patrick Ragert
Journal:  BMC Neurosci       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 3.288

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.