Michael Leung1, Timo Rantalainen1, Wei-Peng Teo1, Dawson Kidgell2. 1. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. dawson.kidgell@monash.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The corticospinal responses to skill training may be different to strength training, depending on how the strength training is performed. It was hypothesised that the corticospinal responses would not be different following skill training and metronome-paced strength training (MPST), but would differ when compared with self-paced strength training (SPST). METHODS:Corticospinal excitability, short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) and strength and tracking error were measured at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks. Participants (n = 44) were randomly allocated to visuomotor tracking, MPST, SPST or a control group. RESULTS:MPST increased strength by 7 and 18%, whilst SPST increased strength by 12 and 26% following 2 and 4 weeks of strength training. There were no changes in strength following skill training. Skill training reduced tracking error by 47 and 58% at 2 and 4 weeks. There were no changes in tracking error following SPST; however, tracking error reduced by 24% following 4 weeks of MPST. Corticospinal excitability increased by 40% following MPST and by 29% following skill training. There was no change in corticospinal excitability following 4 weeks of SPST. Importantly, the magnitude of change between skill training and MPST was not different. SICI decreased by 41 and 61% following 2 and 4 weeks of MPST, whilst SICI decreased by 41 and 33% following 2 and 4 weeks of skill training. Again, SPST had no effect on SICI at 2 and 4 weeks. There was no difference in the magnitude of SICI reduction between skill training and MPST. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds new knowledge regarding the corticospinal responses to skill and MPST, showing they are similar but different when compared with SPST.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The corticospinal responses to skill training may be different to strength training, depending on how the strength training is performed. It was hypothesised that the corticospinal responses would not be different following skill training and metronome-paced strength training (MPST), but would differ when compared with self-paced strength training (SPST). METHODS: Corticospinal excitability, short-interval intra-cortical inhibition (SICI) and strength and tracking error were measured at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks. Participants (n = 44) were randomly allocated to visuomotor tracking, MPST, SPST or a control group. RESULTS: MPST increased strength by 7 and 18%, whilst SPST increased strength by 12 and 26% following 2 and 4 weeks of strength training. There were no changes in strength following skill training. Skill training reduced tracking error by 47 and 58% at 2 and 4 weeks. There were no changes in tracking error following SPST; however, tracking error reduced by 24% following 4 weeks of MPST. Corticospinal excitability increased by 40% following MPST and by 29% following skill training. There was no change in corticospinal excitability following 4 weeks of SPST. Importantly, the magnitude of change between skill training and MPST was not different. SICI decreased by 41 and 61% following 2 and 4 weeks of MPST, whilst SICI decreased by 41 and 33% following 2 and 4 weeks of skill training. Again, SPST had no effect on SICI at 2 and 4 weeks. There was no difference in the magnitude of SICI reduction between skill training and MPST. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds new knowledge regarding the corticospinal responses to skill and MPST, showing they are similar but different when compared with SPST.
Authors: A Manca; F Ginatempo; M P Cabboi; B Mercante; E Ortu; D Dragone; E R De Natale; Z Dvir; J C Rothwell; Franca Deriu Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Jakob Škarabot; Callum G Brownstein; Andrea Casolo; Alessandro Del Vecchio; Paul Ansdell Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Terese L Chmielewski; Justin Tatman; Shuhei Suzuki; MaryBeth Horodyski; Darcy S Reisman; Russell M Bauer; James R Clugston; Daniel C Herman Journal: J Sport Health Sci Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 7.179