José Mira1,2, Thomas Lapole3, Robin Souron3, Laurent Messonnier1, Guillaume Y Millet2, Thomas Rupp4. 1. Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, EA 7424, 73000, Chambéry, France. 2. Human Performance Laboratory, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. 3. Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, Univ Lyon, UJM-Saint-Etienne, EA 7424, 42023, Saint-Etienne, France. 4. Laboratoire Interuniversitaire de Biologie de la Motricité, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, EA 7424, 73000, Chambéry, France. thomas.rupp@univ-smb.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Currently, cortical voluntary activation (VATMS) is assessed by superimposing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), 75% MVC and 50% MVC, each contraction being interspersed with 5-10 s of relaxation. Here, we assessed whether this traditional approach (TRADI) underestimates central fatigue due to this short recovery compared to a continuous method (CONTI). METHODS:VATMS, motor-evoked potential (MEP), and cortical silent period (CSP) of the vastus lateralis were determined in 12 young healthy adults before and after a 2-min sustained MVC of knee extensors in two randomly assigned sessions. In TRADI, evaluations comprised a 7-s rest between the three contractions (100, 75, and 50% MVC) and evaluation following the 2-min sustained MVC started after a minimal rest (3-4 s). In CONTI, evaluations were performed with no rest allowed between the three levels of contraction, and evaluation after the 2-min sustained MVC commenced without any rest. RESULTS:MVC was equally depressed at the end of the 2 min in both conditions. Post 2-min sustained MVC, VATMS change was greater in CONTI than in TRADI (-29 (15)% [-42, -17] vs. -9 (4)% [-13, -5], respectively, P < 0.001). Differences were also observed between TRADI and CONTI for MEP and CSP immediately after the fatiguing exercise. All differences between the two methods disappeared after 2 min of recovery. CONCLUSION: After a 2-min sustained MVC, a few seconds of recovery change the amount of measured VATMS and associated parameters of central fatigue. The continuous method should be preferred to determine deficits in voluntary activation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Currently, cortical voluntary activation (VATMS) is assessed by superimposing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) on a maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), 75% MVC and 50% MVC, each contraction being interspersed with 5-10 s of relaxation. Here, we assessed whether this traditional approach (TRADI) underestimates central fatigue due to this short recovery compared to a continuous method (CONTI). METHODS: VATMS, motor-evoked potential (MEP), and cortical silent period (CSP) of the vastus lateralis were determined in 12 young healthy adults before and after a 2-min sustained MVC of knee extensors in two randomly assigned sessions. In TRADI, evaluations comprised a 7-s rest between the three contractions (100, 75, and 50% MVC) and evaluation following the 2-min sustained MVC started after a minimal rest (3-4 s). In CONTI, evaluations were performed with no rest allowed between the three levels of contraction, and evaluation after the 2-min sustained MVC commenced without any rest. RESULTS: MVC was equally depressed at the end of the 2 min in both conditions. Post 2-min sustained MVC, VATMS change was greater in CONTI than in TRADI (-29 (15)% [-42, -17] vs. -9 (4)% [-13, -5], respectively, P < 0.001). Differences were also observed between TRADI and CONTI for MEP and CSP immediately after the fatiguing exercise. All differences between the two methods disappeared after 2 min of recovery. CONCLUSION: After a 2-min sustained MVC, a few seconds of recovery change the amount of measured VATMS and associated parameters of central fatigue. The continuous method should be preferred to determine deficits in voluntary activation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Central fatigue; Corticospinal excitability; Intracortical inhibition; Maximal muscle contraction; Recovery; Transcranial magnetic stimulation
Authors: Gary W Thickbroom; Paul Sacco; Allan G Kermode; Sarah A Archer; Michelle L Byrnes; Andrew Guilfoyle; Frank L Mastaglia Journal: J Neurol Date: 2006-04-10 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: W J Triggs; K J McCoy; R Greer; F Rossi; D Bowers; S Kortenkamp; S E Nadeau; K M Heilman; W K Goodman Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 1999-06-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: J Mira; S J Aboodarda; M Floreani; R Jaswal; S J Moon; K Amery; T Rupp; Guillaume Y Millet Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-08-18 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: S J Aboodarda; J Mira; M Floreani; R Jaswal; S J Moon; K Amery; T Rupp; G Y Millet Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jeanne Dekerle; Aaron Greenhouse-Tucknott; James G Wrightson; Lisa Schäfer; Paul Ansdell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: P G Couto; M D Silva-Cavalcante; B Mezêncio; R A Azevedo; R Cruz; R Bertuzzi; A E Lima-Silva; M A P D Kiss Journal: Braz J Med Biol Res Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.590