Literature DB >> 30354778

Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent.

E J Lockyer1,2, R J Benson1, A P Hynes1, L R Alcock1, A J Spence1, D C Button1,2, K E Power1,2.   

Abstract

The present study investigated the effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability to the biceps (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS and cervicomedullary motor-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited by TMES were recorded at two positions during arm cycling corresponding to mid-elbow flexion and mid-elbow extension (i.e., 6 and 12 o'clock made relative to a clock face, respectively). Arm cycling was performed at combinations of two cadences (60 and 90 rpm) at three relative power outputs (20, 40, and 60% peak power output). At the 6 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased ~11.5% as cadence increased and up to ~57.2% as power output increased ( P < 0.05). In the TB, MEPs increased ~15.2% with cadence ( P = 0.013) but were not affected by power output, while CMEPs increased with cadence (~16.3%) and power output (up to ~19.1%, P < 0.05). At the 12 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased ~26.8% as cadence increased and up to ~96.1% as power output increased ( P < 0.05), while CMEPs decreased ~29.7% with cadence ( P = 0.013) and did not change with power output ( P = 0.851). In contrast, TB MEPs were not different with cadence or power output, while CMEPs increased ~12.8% with cadence and up to ~23.1% with power output ( P < 0.05). These data suggest that the "type" of intensity differentially modulates supraspinal and spinal excitability in a manner that is phase- and muscle dependent. NEW &amp; NOTEWORTHY There is currently little information available on how changes in locomotor intensity influence excitability within the corticospinal pathway. This study investigated the effects of arm cycling intensity (i.e., alterations in cadence and power output) on corticospinal excitability projecting to the biceps and triceps brachii during arm cycling. We demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is modulated differentially by cadence and power output and that these modulations are dependent on the phase and the muscle examined.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CMEP; MEP; arm cranking; exercise; pedaling

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30354778      PMCID: PMC6337038          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00358.2018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  42 in total

Review 1.  Golgi tendon organs in mammalian skeletal muscle: functional properties and central actions.

Authors:  L Jami
Journal:  Physiol Rev       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 37.312

2.  Amplitude of the maximum motor response (Mmax) in human muscles typically decreases during the course of an experiment.

Authors:  C Crone; L L Johnsen; H Hultborn; G B Orsnes
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effect of contraction strength on responses in biceps brachii and adductor pollicis to transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  J L Taylor; G M Allen; J E Butler; S C Gandevia
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  Chronic resistance training enhances the spinal excitability of the biceps brachii in the non-dominant arm at moderate contraction intensities.

Authors:  Devin T G Philpott; Gregory E P Pearcey; Davis Forman; Kevin E Power; Duane C Button
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Effect of afferent feedback and central motor commands on soleus H-reflex suppression during arm cycling.

Authors:  S R Hundza; Geoff C de Ruiter; M Klimstra; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Corticospinal excitability is lower during rhythmic arm movement than during tonic contraction.

Authors:  Timothy J Carroll; Evan R L Baldwin; David F Collins; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2005-10-26       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Heteronymous reflex connections in human upper limb muscles in response to stretch of forearm muscles.

Authors:  Curtis D Manning; Parveen Bawa
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  [Control of walking and running by means of electric stimulation of the midbrain].

Authors:  M L Shik; F V Severin; G N Orlovskiĭ
Journal:  Biofizika       Date:  1966

9.  Bistability of alpha-motoneurones in the decerebrate cat and in the acute spinal cat after intravenous 5-hydroxytryptophan.

Authors:  J Hounsgaard; H Hultborn; B Jespersen; O Kiehn
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1988-11       Impact factor: 5.182

10.  Differences in supraspinal and spinal excitability during various force outputs of the biceps brachii in chronic- and non-resistance trained individuals.

Authors:  Gregory E P Pearcey; Kevin E Power; Duane C Button
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

1.  Corticospinal excitability is altered similarly following concentric and eccentric maximal contractions.

Authors:  Pierre Clos; Yoann Garnier; Alain Martin; Romuald Lepers
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.078

2.  Sensory enhancement of warm-up amplifies subsequent grip strength and cycling performance.

Authors:  Benjamin M Nazaroff; Gregory E P Pearcey; Bridget Munro; E Paul Zehr
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 3.078

Review 3.  Endurance-exercise training adaptations in spinal motoneurones: potential functional relevance to locomotor output and assessment in humans.

Authors:  Kevin E Power; Evan J Lockyer; Alberto Botter; Taian Vieira; Duane C Button
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2022-02-28       Impact factor: 3.078

4.  Interhemispheric inhibition is different during arm cycling than a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction.

Authors:  Chris T Compton; Evan J Lockyer; Ryan J Benson; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 2.064

5.  Corticospinal-Evoked Responses from the Biceps Brachii during Arm Cycling across Multiple Power Outputs.

Authors:  Evan J Lockyer; Katarina Hosel; Anna P Nippard; Duane C Button; Kevin E Power
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2019-08-19

6.  The Effect of Crank Resistance on Arm Configuration and Muscle Activation Variances in Arm Cycling Movements.

Authors:  Mariann Mravcsik; Lilla Botzheim; Norbert Zentai; Davide Piovesan; Jozsef Laczko
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 2.193

7.  Corticospinal Excitability Is Lower During Eccentric Than Concentric Cycling in Men.

Authors:  Pierre Clos; Adrien Mater; Hippolyte Legrand; Gabriel Poirier; Yves Ballay; Alain Martin; Romuald Lepers
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-03-16       Impact factor: 4.566

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.