Literature DB >> 29928769

Motor cortical and corticospinal function differ during an isometric squat compared with isometric knee extension.

Callum G Brownstein1, Paul Ansdell1, Jakob Škarabot1, Ash Frazer2, Dawson Kidgell2, Glyn Howatson1,3, Stuart Goodall1, Kevin Thomas1.   

Abstract

NEW
FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? In order to discern information about testing modalities when assessing neuroplastic responses to squat resistance training, the present study investigated whether corticospinal and intracortical function was different between a joint-angle-matched isometric squat and isometric knee extension. What is the main finding and its importance? The present data show poor agreement of corticospinal and intracortical function between the isometric squat and isometric knee extension. The data reinforce the notion that task specificity is of the utmost importance for assessing neuroplasticity. ABSTRACT: It has been suggested that task-specific changes in neurophysiological function (neuroplasticity) should be assessed using testing modalities that replicate the characteristics of the intervention. The squat is a commonly prescribed resistance exercise that has been shown to elicit changes in CNS function. However, previous studies have assessed squat-induced neuroplasticity using isometric knee extension, potentially confounding the results. The aim of the present study was to assess the agreement between corticospinal and intracortical activity relating to the knee extensors during isometric knee extension compared with an isometric squat task. Eleven males completed a neurophysiological assessment in an isometric squat (IS) and knee-extension (KE) task matched for joint angles (hip, knee and ankle). Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered during isometric contractions at a range of intensities to assess short-interval cortical inhibition (SICI) and corticospinal excitability. Group mean values for SICI (70 ± 14 versus 63 ± 12% of unconditioned motor evoked potential during IS and KE, respectively) and corticospinal excitability (mean differences 2-5% of the maximal compound muscle action potential at 25, 50, 75 and 100% maximal voluntary contraction between the IS and KE) were not different between the two tasks (P > 0.05) in the vastus lateralis. However, limits of agreement were wide, with poor-to-moderate average intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) (SICI, ICC3,1  = 0.15; corticospinal excitability, average ICC3,1 range = 0.0-0.63), indicating disparate corticospinal and intracortical activity between the IS and KE. These data highlight the importance of task specificity when assessing the modulation of corticospinal excitability and SICI in response to interventions resulting in neuroplastic changes.
© 2018 The Authors. Experimental Physiology © 2018 The Physiological Society.

Keywords:  squat; task specificity; transcranial magnetic stimulation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29928769     DOI: 10.1113/EP086982

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Physiol        ISSN: 0958-0670            Impact factor:   2.969


  4 in total

1.  Tracking the corticospinal responses to strength training.

Authors:  Joel Mason; Ashlyn K Frazer; Janne Avela; Alan J Pearce; Glyn Howatson; Dawson J Kidgell
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Characterizing off-target corticospinal responses to double-cone transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  F Proessl; M C Canino; M E Beckner; A M Sinnott; S R Eagle; A D LaGoy; W R Conkright; A J Sterczala; C Connaboy; F Ferrarelli; A Germain; B C Nindl; S D Flanagan
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-02-06       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effect of paired-pulse stimulus parameters on the two phases of short interval intracortical inhibition in the quadriceps muscle group.

Authors:  Chandramouli Krishnan
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 2.406

Review 4.  The knowns and unknowns of neural adaptations to resistance training.

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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.