Literature DB >> 28725924

Effect of training status on beta-range corticomuscular coherence in agonist vs. antagonist muscles during isometric knee contractions.

Fabien Dal Maso1, Marieke Longcamp2, Sylvain Cremoux3, David Amarantini4.   

Abstract

Antagonist muscle co-activation is thought to be partially regulated by cortical influences, but direct motor cortex involvement is not fully understood. Corticomuscular coherence (CMC) measures direct functional coupling of the motor cortex and muscles. As antagonist co-activation differs according to training status, comparison of CMC in agonist and antagonist muscles and in strength-trained and endurance-trained individuals may provide in-depth knowledge of cortical implication in antagonist muscle co-activation. Electroencephalographic and electromyographic signals were recorded, while 10 strength-trained and 11 endurance-trained participants performed isometric knee contractions in flexion and extension at various torque levels. CMC magnitude in 13-21 and 21-31 Hz frequency bands was quantified by CMC analysis between Cz electroencephalographic electrode activity and all electromyographic signals. CMC was significant in both 13-21 and 21-31 Hz frequency bands in flexor and extensor muscles regardless of participant group, torque level, and direction of contraction. CMC magnitude decreased more in antagonist than in agonist muscles as torque level increased. Finally, CMC magnitude was higher in strength-trained than in endurance-trained participants. These findings provide experimental evidence that the motor cortex directly regulates both agonist and antagonist muscles. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying muscle activation may be specific to their function. Between-group modulation of corticomuscular coherence may result from training-induced adaptation, re-emphasizing that corticomuscular coherence analysis may be efficient in characterizing corticospinal adaptations after long-term muscle specialization.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Co-activation; Cortical regulation; Primary motor cortex; Time–frequency analysis; Training-induced adaptation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28725924     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-017-5035-z

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


  76 in total

1.  Role of cocontraction in arm movement accuracy.

Authors:  Paul L Gribble; Lucy I Mullin; Nicholas Cothros; Andrew Mattar
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2003-01-22       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Contraction level-related modulation of corticomuscular coherence differs between the tibialis anterior and soleus muscles in humans.

Authors:  Junichi Ushiyama; Yoshihisa Masakado; Toshiyuki Fujiwara; Tetsuya Tsuji; Kimitaka Hase; Akio Kimura; Meigen Liu; Junichi Ushiba
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2012-02-02

3.  Bilateral motor unit synchronization of leg muscles during a simple dynamic balance task.

Authors:  Tjeerd W Boonstra; Andreas Daffertshofer; Melvyn Roerdink; Ivo Flipse; Karin Groenewoud; Peter J Beek
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2009-01-17       Impact factor: 3.386

4.  Training-related changes in the EMG-moment relationship during isometric contractions: Further evidence of improved control of muscle activation in strength-trained men?

Authors:  David Amarantini; Bertrand Bru
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  Fatigue-related electromyographic coherence and phase synchronization analysis between antagonistic elbow muscles.

Authors:  Lejun Wang; Aiyun Lu; Shengnian Zhang; Wenxin Niu; Fanhui Zheng; Mingxin Gong
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  The effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation on corticomuscular coherence in humans.

Authors:  Naja Liv Hansen; Jens Bo Nielsen
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2004-09-09       Impact factor: 5.182

7.  Task-specific depression of the soleus H-reflex after cocontraction training of antagonistic ankle muscles.

Authors:  Monica A Perez; Jesper Lundbye-Jensen; Jens B Nielsen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2007-10-17       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 8.  Human Spinal Motor Control.

Authors:  Jens Bo Nielsen
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2016-03-25       Impact factor: 12.449

9.  The effect of diazepam on motor cortical oscillations and corticomuscular coherence studied in man.

Authors:  Mark R Baker; Stuart N Baker
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Fast Oscillatory Commands from the Motor Cortex Can Be Decoded by the Spinal Cord for Force Control.

Authors:  Renato N Watanabe; Andre F Kohn
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  5 in total

1.  Beta-band motor unit coherence and nonlinear surface EMG features of the first dorsal interosseous muscle vary with force.

Authors:  Lara McManus; Matthew W Flood; Madeleine M Lowery
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Investigation of Corticomuscular Functional Coupling during Hand Movements Using Vine Copula.

Authors:  Fei Ye; JinSuo Ding; Kai Chen; Xugang Xi
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-06-08

3.  Corticomuscular Coherence for Upper Arm Flexor and Extensor Muscles During Isometric Exercise and Cyclically Isokinetic Movement.

Authors:  Jinbiao Liu; Yixuan Sheng; Jia Zeng; Honghai Liu
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.677

4.  Specific modulation of corticomuscular coherence during submaximal voluntary isometric, shortening and lengthening contractions.

Authors:  Dorian Glories; Mathias Soulhol; David Amarantini; Julien Duclay
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Electroencephalogram-Electromyogram Functional Coupling and Delay Time Change Based on Motor Task Performance.

Authors:  Nyi Nyi Tun; Fumiya Sanuki; Keiji Iramina
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 3.576

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.