Literature DB >> 27038204

Differences in corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii between arm cycling and tonic contraction are not evident at the immediate onset of movement.

Davis A Forman1, Devin T G Philpott1, Duane C Button1,2, Kevin E Power3,4.   

Abstract

This is the first study to examine changes in corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii during the onset of arm cycling from a resting position to a point when steady-state arm cycling was obtained. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation and cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation, respectively. Evoked responses were recorded from the biceps brachii during elbow flexion (6 o'clock relative to a clock face) for both arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction at three separate periods: (1) immediately at the onset of motor output and after completion of the (2) 4th revolution and (3) 9th revolution. There was no difference during initiation between tasks for MEP (P = 0.79) or CMEP amplitudes (P = 0.57). However, MEP amplitudes were significantly larger during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction after the completion of the 4th (Cycling 76.48 ± 17.35 % of M max, Tonic 63.45 ± 18.45 % of M max, P < 0.05) and 9th revolutions (Cycling 72.37 ± 15.96 % of M max, Tonic 58.1 ± 24.23 % of M max, P < 0.05). There were no differences between conditions in CMEP amplitudes at the 4th (Cycling 49.6 ± 25.4 % of M max, Tonic 41.6 ± 11.2 % of M max, P = 0.31) or the 9th revolution (Cycling 47.2 ± 17.0 % of M max, Tonic 40.8 ± 13.6 % of M max, P = 0.29). These results demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is not different between arm cycling and a tonic contraction at motor output onset, but supraspinal excitability is enhanced during steady-state arm cycling. This suggests a similarity in the way the corticospinal tract initiates motor outputs in humans, regardless of the differences that present themselves in the later, steady-state stages.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CMEP; Initiation; MEP; Pedalling; Transcranial; Transmastoid

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27038204     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4639-z

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


  33 in total

1.  Changes in reciprocal inhibition across the ankle joint with changes in external load and pedaling rate during bicycling.

Authors:  H S Pyndt; M Laursen; J B Nielsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-07-23       Impact factor: 2.714

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.  Effect of afferent feedback and central motor commands on soleus H-reflex suppression during arm cycling.

Authors:  S R Hundza; Geoff C de Ruiter; M Klimstra; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Short-interval intracortical inhibition in knee extensors during locomotor cycling.

Authors:  S K Sidhu; A G Cresswell; T J Carroll
Journal:  Acta Physiol (Oxf)       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 6.311

5.  Reciprocal Ia inhibition between ankle flexors and extensors in man.

Authors:  C Crone; H Hultborn; B Jespersen; J Nielsen
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 5.182

6.  Evidence for two concurrent inhibitory mechanisms during response preparation.

Authors:  Julie Duque; David Lew; Riccardo Mazzocchio; Etienne Olivier; Richard B Ivry
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 7.  Neural control of rhythmic human movement: the common core hypothesis.

Authors:  E Paul Zehr
Journal:  Exerc Sport Sci Rev       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 6.230

8.  Voltage-dependent excitation of motoneurones from spinal locomotor centres in the cat.

Authors:  R M Brownstone; J P Gossard; H Hultborn
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Modulation of transmission in the corticospinal and group Ia afferent pathways to soleus motoneurons during bicycling.

Authors:  H S Pyndt; J B Nielsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.714

10.  Different corticospinal control between discrete and rhythmic movement of the ankle.

Authors:  Yumeno Goto; Yasutomo Jono; Ryota Hatanaka; Yoshifumi Nomura; Keisuke Tani; Yuta Chujo; Koichi Hiraoka
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  4 in total

1.  Muscle length and joint angle influence spinal but not corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii across forearm postures.

Authors:  Davis A Forman; Daniel Abdel-Malek; Christopher M F Bunce; Michael W R Holmes
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Effects of Vertical Lifting Distance on Upper-Body Muscle Fatigue.

Authors:  Nianli Fang; Chang Zhang; Jian Lv
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 3.390

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.