Chetan P Phadke1, Sheryl Flynn2, Carl Kukulka3, Floyd J Thompson4, Andrea L Behrman5. 1. West Park Healthcare Centre, University of Toronto, and York University, Toronto, Canada. 2. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California. 3. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. University of Florida and Veterans Affairs, Malcolm Randall VAMC, Gainesville, Florida. 5. University of Louisville, Kentucky.
Abstract
Objective: To compare phase- and task-dependent H-reflex modulation in standing and walking in 2 spinal cord injury (SCI) groups with and without a walker. Methods: Fourteen subjects with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale D SCI (40±10 years) participated. Tibial nerve was stimulated to evoke 15 H-reflexes (at M-wave 7%-13% of maximum-M). Results: H-reflex was greater in the walker group during stance (but not standing/swing). Conclusion: Differences in H-reflex modulation between groups walking with and without a walker may be explained by sensory mechanism that enhances central excitation, difference in motor activation levels between groups, and other complex mechanisms that influence balance or stability.
Objective: To compare phase- and task-dependent H-reflex modulation in standing and walking in 2 spinal cord injury (SCI) groups with and without a walker. Methods: Fourteen subjects with American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale D SCI (40±10 years) participated. Tibial nerve was stimulated to evoke 15 H-reflexes (at M-wave 7%-13% of maximum-M). Results: H-reflex was greater in the walker group during stance (but not standing/swing). Conclusion: Differences in H-reflex modulation between groups walking with and without a walker may be explained by sensory mechanism that enhances central excitation, difference in motor activation levels between groups, and other complex mechanisms that influence balance or stability.
Authors: Chetan P Phadke; Floyd J Thompson; Mark H Trimble; Andrea L Behrman; Carl G Kukulka Journal: Int J Neurosci Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.292
Authors: Heather B Hayes; Stacie A Chvatal; Margaret A French; Lena H Ting; Randy D Trumbower Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 3.708