Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults.

Previous research has demonstrated a lack of neuroplasticity induced by acute exercise in low fit individuals, but the influence of exercise intensity is unclear. In the present study, we assessed the effect of acute high-intensity (HI) or moderate-intensity (MOD) interval exercise on neuroplasticity in individuals with low fitness, as determined by a peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) test (n = 19). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to assess corticospinal excitability via area under the motor evoked potential (MEP) recruitment curve before and following training. Corticospinal excitability was unchanged after HI and MOD, suggesting no effect of acute exercise on neuroplasticity as measured via TMS in sedentary, young individuals. Repeated bouts of exercise, i.e., physical training, may be required to induce short-term changes in corticospinal excitability in previously sedentary individuals.

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) provides a unique opportunity to non-invasively assess neuroplasticity within the motor system. Single-pulse TMS to the primary motor cortex (M1) can be used to acquire motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), an indicator of corticospinal excitability [1]. One goal of rehabilitation is to alter corticospinal excitability, and this can be measured by changes in the MEP amplitude. Exercise is both cost-effective and can be combined with other rehabilitation protocols to augment the effects of motor re-learning [2]. Numerous studies have used TMS to assess neuroplasticity within the motor system after an acute session of aerobic exercise in healthy individuals (Table 1). These studies have reported either no change [3-7] or an increase [6,8,9] in MEP amplitude following exercise. The discrepancy may relate to either the fitness level of the participants tested, or the intensity of the exercise performed. However, the discrepancy may also relate to the method by which fitness is assessed. For example, the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) is commonly used to assesses physical activity and not fitness per se, whereas a peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) test provides an indication of cardiorespiratory fitness. Studies reporting an increase in MEP amplitude after acute exercise were generally performed using highly fit individuals as gauged by a VO2peak test [8,9] or in highly active individuals as gauged by the IPAQ [6]. In contrast, research performed in low fit, young adults generally found no change in corticospinal excitability following exercise [3-6,10]. Therefore, it appears that fitness level may influence the mechanism by which exercise induces short-term neuroplasticity.

Table 1

Effects of acute cycling on upper limb neurophysiology.

Reference	Population	Exercise	MEPs
Singh et al. [4]	n = 12 (5 females, fitness/activity level not reported)	MICT (65–70% age-predicted HRmax)	∅*
Lulic et al. [6]	n = 14 active (9 females, IPAQ: 7631 ± 6120) n = 14 sedentary (8 females, IPAQ: 1305 ± 773)	MICT (60% age-predicted HRmax)	↑ in fit group only#
Smith et al. [5]	n = 9 sedentary (4 females, IPAQ: 1784 ± 361)	LICT (40% HRR) M-HICT (80% HRR)	∅ following both interventions*#
Stavrinos & Coxon [10]	n = 24 sedentary (10 females, IPAQ: 2770 ± 1602)	HIIT (90% HRR, 50% HRR)	∅*
McDonnell et al. [3]	n = 25 sedentary (16 females, IPAQ: 1630 ± 906)	LICT (55–65% age-predicted HRmax) MICT (75% age-predicted HRmax)	∅ following both interventions*
El-Sayes et al. [8]	n = 34 fit (17 females, VO2peak: 46.4 ± 6.6 mL/kg/min)	MICT (65–70% HRmax)	↑#
MacDonald et al. [9]	n = 15 sedentary-fit (8 females, VO2peak: 33.7 ± 7.0 mL/kg/min [range of 22.1–48.2])	LICT (30% HRR) MICT (40–50% HRR)	↑ after MICT only*
Neva et al. [7]	n = 12 active (6 females, IPAQ: 5112 ± 686)	MICT (65–70% VO2peak)	∅*
Andrews et al. [11]	n = 20 sedentary-active (11 females, IPAQ: 4681 ± 2287	MICT (50% HRR) HIIT (90% HRR, 50% HRR)	∅ following both interventions#
Opie & Semmler [12]	n = 13 (5 females, fitness/activity level not reported)	LICT (50% HRR) HIIT (77% HRR, 25% HRR)	↑ following both interventions*

MEPs: motor-evoked potentials; IPAQ: International Physical Activity Questionnaire; VO2peak: cardiorespiratory fitness; MICT: moderate-intensity continuous exercise; LICT: low-intensity continuous exercise; HICT: high-intensity continuous exercise; HIIT: high-intensity interval exercise; HRR: heart rate reserve; HRmax: maximum heart rate; ↓: reductions, ∅: no change; ↑: increases; N/A: not applicable.

*indicates results were obtained immediately post-exercise.

#indicates results were obtained 10-15min post-exercise.

There is also evidence that the magnitude of neuroplastic change may be related to the intensity of acute exercise. For example, higher-intensity exercise seemingly induces a greater increase in brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), markers of neuroplasticity [13], compared to lower-intensity exercise [14-19]. Further, improvements in motor skill retention are greater following high- versus low-intensity acute exercise [20]. Opie & Semmler [12] reported an increase in MEPs following both low-intensity continuous and high-intensity interval cycling exercise whereas MacDonald et al. [9] demonstrated increased MEP amplitude following moderate-intensity but not low-intensity continuous cycling. In contrast, other studies have found no change in MEPs following lower versus higher intensity cycling [3,5,11]. These conflicting results demonstrate the discrepancies in the literature relating the effects of exercise intensity on corticospinal excitability. To date, no study has demonstrated changes in MEPs in low fit individuals, providing the incentive to test the effects of exercise intensity in this population. A direct comparison of high- versus moderate-intensity exercise is necessary to examine this question and has yet to be performed. Low fit individuals are at a higher risk for experiencing stroke [21]. Therefore, it is important to identify exercise regimes that increase corticospinal excitability this population. Rehabilitation can capitalize on the post-exercise increases in corticospinal excitability, as this can prime the motor system for improvements in motor learning or re-learning [2,22].

In the present study, we tested whether an acute bout of high-intensity (HI) or moderate-intensity (MOD) interval exercise altered corticospinal excitability in low fit individuals. Interval exercise involves short bouts of relatively higher intensity exercise interspersed with brief recovery periods [23] and is a potent stimulus for increasing BDNF levels [24]. We chose to use a moderate intensity interval exercise rather than the more commonly used continuous exercise in order to isolate the effect of exercise intensity and remove effects due to the intervallic structure of the exercise. Further, fluctuations in metabolic stress (i.e. an intermittent pattern of exercise) have been shown to influence acute skeletal muscle responses to exercise, independent of exercise intensity [25]. In addition, a recent editorial called for future research to compare physiological responses to moderate-intensity interval exercise and high-intensity interval exercise to better understand the influence of intensity independent of the exercise stimulus pattern (i.e. intermittent) [26]. It was hypothesized that HI would increase corticospinal excitability compared to MOD in low fit young adults, as higher intensity exercise evokes increased BDNF [16-18,27] and IGF-1 [14] levels more so than moderate-intensity exercise.

Methods

Participants

Nineteen individuals (22.1 ± 2.6 years; 7 females) participated in three sessions, with a minimum of 48 h between each session. Results from Lulic et al. [6] were used to provide an estimate of the required sample size. The reported effect size for finding a change in MEPs was Cohen’s d of 0.5, and assuming a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.8, this yielded a sample size of 22 participants. All individuals reported no history of neurological disease or illness and were right-hand dominant as determined by the modified version of the Edinburgh Handedness Scale [28]. All participants were of low cardiorespiratory fitness, as determined by a VO2peak test, and classification in the “poor” category as defined by the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (below 41.6 ml/kg/min for males and 35.0 ml/kg/min for females) [29]. Participants had an average VO2peak of 34.1 ± 4.0 ml/kg/min (coefficient of variation is 11.7%), height of 171.5 ± 9.5 cm, and weight of 69.9 ± 12.6 kg. Participants were also screened for contraindications to TMS [30] and exercise, using a Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire [31]. Participants were asked to refrain from physical activity on the day of each session, and from consuming alcohol or nicotine for 12 h prior to each session. Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation. This study was approved by the McMaster Research Ethics Board and conformed to the Declaration of Helsinki.

Experimental design

VO2peak was determined during the first session on an electronically braked cycle ergometer (Lode Excalibur Sport V 2.0, Groningen, the Netherlands) and an on-line gas collection system (Moxus modular oxygen uptake system, AEI Technologies, Pittsburg, PA, USA), as previously described [32]. The VO2peak test began with a warm-up at 50 W for 2 minutes, then the workload was increased by 1 W every 2 seconds until volitional fatigue occurred or until participants could no longer cycle at 60 r.p.m. The VO2peak corresponded to the highest value achieved over a 30 second period. To determine if a valid maximal effort was achieved during the VO2peak test, participants were required to meet two out of four of the following criteria: HRmax within 10 bpm of their predicted maximum, respiratory exchange ratio > 1.1, plateau, and/or volitional exhaustion [33]. All participants exerted maximal effort according to these criteria.

Sessions 2 and 3 followed the experimental timeline in Fig 1. Dependent measures were obtained before exercise (T0) and beginning 10 minutes following the end of the exercise intervention (T1). Post-intervention assessments were obtained 10 minutes post-exercise to ensure that heart rate returned to resting levels before data was collected. The order of dependent measure acquisition within each time block was pseudorandomized using the William Square Counterbalance. Ten participants (3 females, 7 males) underwent HI in session 2 and MOD in session 3 (described below), while nine participants (4 females, 5 males) underwent MOD followed by HI. Physical activity levels were assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ; [34]) on both experimental sessions to ensure similar physical activity levels were maintained throughout the duration of the study.

Fig 1

Experimental timeline.

All dependent measures were acquired before (T0) and beginning ten minutes post-exercise (T1). Dependent measures included maximum M-wave (M-Max), resting motor threshold (RMT), and motor evoked potential (MEP) recruitment curves (RC). The exercise protocols included a 3 minute warm up at 50 W, ten 1 minute bouts interspersed with 1 minute of recovery, and a 2 minute cool down. The intensity of the bouts was 80–100% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) for HI 60–79% HRmax for MOD. Recovery periods involved light cycling at 50 W.

Acute exercise interventions

HI and MOD were performed via lower limb cycling on an electronically braked cycle ergometer (Ergo Race, Kettler, Germany). Both exercise protocols included a 3 minute warm up at 50 W, ten 1 minute bouts interspersed by 1 min recovery periods, and a 2 minute cool down (Fig 1). The intensity bouts was 80–100% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) for HI and 60–79% HRmax for MOD [35] and participants were instructed to cycle between 80–100 r.p.m. The recovery periods for both interventions involved light cycling at 50 W [36], and participants were instructed to cycle at a self-selected pace. Heart rate was monitored using telemetry (Polar A3, New York, USA) to obtain continuous data for the 25 minute exercise period and the 10 minute rest period following the exercise. Ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) were acquired at the end of each interval during the intervention using the 0–10 Borg scale [37]. Throughout the exercise, electromyography (EMG) activity of the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle (EMGexercise) was recorded to ensure that the FDI muscle was inactive.

Electromyography recording

EMG was recorded from the right FDI using surface electrodes (9 mm diameter Ag-AgCl) placed in a belly tendon montage, with a wet ground electrode placed around the forearm. EMG signals were amplified (x1000), bandpass filtered between 20 Hz and 2.5 kHz (Intronix Technologies Corporation Model 2024F with Signal Conditioning; Intronix Technologies Corporation, Bolton, Canada), and digitized at 5 kHz (Power1401, Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK). EMG data were collected using Signal software version 6.02 (Cambridge Electronic Design, Cambridge, UK).

Maximum M-wave (M-Max)

M-Max was used to normalize MEPs before and after exercise and defined as the maximum response elicited from the right FDI following ulnar nerve stimulation at the wrist. Nerve stimulation was delivered using a bar electrode (cathode proximal) and a constant current stimulator (Digitimer DS7AH) delivering 200 μs square wave pulses. Stimulation intensity was increased by 1 mA at each trial until the M-wave ceased to increase in 3 consecutive trials. The peak-to-peak amplitude of the M-wave (mV) was defined as M-Max.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Single and paired monophasic TMS pulses were delivered using a custom-built 50 mm diameter figure-of-eight branding coil connected to a Magstim Bistim stimulator (Magstim, Whitland, UK). The TMS coil was positioned 45 degrees in relation to the parasagittal plane to induce a posterior-to-anterior current in the cortex. The motor hotspot for the right FDI was determined within the left motor cortex and defined as the location that elicited large and consistent MEPs. The motor hotspot was digitally registered using Brainsight Neuronavigation (Rogue Research, Canada). RMT was defined as the lowest intensity required to evoke a MEP ≥ 50 μV in 5 out of 10 consecutive trials in the relaxed FDI muscle [30]. MEP recruitment curves were obtained from the right FDI muscle at rest by delivering seven TMS pulses at 100–140% RMT in 10% increments in a randomized order (35 pulses total).

Data analyses

All MEP trials were assessed for background muscle activity. Trials were excluded if the EMG activity immediately before the TMS stimulus artifact exceeded 50 μV [38]. The mean peak-to-peak MEP amplitude at each intensity (100–140% RMT) of the recruitment curve was calculated by averaging the MEPs of the seven trials at each intensity. The Area Under the Recruitment Curve (AURC) was obtained by calculating the trapezoidal integration of the recruitment curve (, where MEP100% is the MEP amplitude at 100% RMT, etc.). AURC was normalized to M-Max (i.e. AURC/M-Max) at T0 and T1 to account for altered electrode conductance that may follow exercise [39].

Group-level analyses included normality testing using the Shapiro-Wilk’s test. Outliers were identified using IBM SPSS Software as data points 3 times above or below the interquartile range. No outliers were observed in the data. AURC at T0 was assessed using a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank to determine if AURC at T0 was different between HI and MOD. Since no baseline difference was observed (i.e. T0 in HI was not different than T0 in MOD), AURC was assessed using a repeated-measures ANOVA with factors INTERVENTION (2 levels: HI, MOD) and TIME (2 levels: T0, T1). HI versus MOD effects on IPAQ, RPE, EMGexercise, and heart rate were assessed using paired t-tests in cases were data was normally distributed or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests in cases where data was not normally distributed. The significance level was set to p ≤ 0.05 and effect sizes were calculated using Hedge’s g.

Results

All participants were classified as low fit with a mean VO2peak of 34.1 ± 4.0 ml/kg/min (Fig 2). Physical activity levels, assessed via IPAQ, did not differ between the two experimental sessions (HI: 2302.1 ± 2172.3; MOD: 2245.7 ± 2062.5; Wilcoxon: p = 0.65). Exercise details are presented in Table 2. The average HR during the “on” and “off” intervals were significantly different in both the HI (paired t-test, p < 0.001, g = 0.85) and MOD exercises (paired t-test, p < 0.01, g = 0.41). Further, the %HRmax was significantly different between the “on” and “off” intervals for both the HI (paired t-test, p < 0.001, g = 0.86) and MOD exercises (paired t-test, p < 0.01, g = 0.38). The HI protocol was more intense than MOD as demonstrated by higher heart rate during bouts (HI: 87.1 ± 6.4% HRmax; MOD: 70.4± 7.0% HRmax, paired t-test, p < 0.001, g = 2.44) and the greater RPE (HI: 5.5 ± 1.3; MOD: 3.5 ± 1.7, paired t-test, p < 0.001, g = 1.13).

Fig 2

Fitness distribution of participants.

All participants were classified as sedentary with an average VO2peak of 34.1 ± 4.0 ml/kg/min. Our inclusion criteria for ‘low fitness’ was to achieve a score of “poor” as defined by the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (below 41.6 ml/kg/min for males and 35.0 ml/kg/min for females).

Table 2

Exercise details.

	HI		MOD		Bouts
	“on”	“off”	“on”	“off”
Heart rate (bpm)	161.5 ± 10.8	151.5 ± 12.3	130.5 ± 12.0	125.5 ± 12.0	p = 0.001*, g = 2.66 (Wilcoxon)
% HRmax	87.1 ± 6.4	81.6 ± 6.0	70.4 ± 7.0	67.7 ± 7.0	p < 0.001*, g = 2.44 (paired-t-test)
RPE (0–10)	5.5 ± 1.3	3.5 ± 1.9	3.5 ± 1.7	2.7 ± 1.9	p < 0.001*, g = 1.13 (paired t-test)
Power (W)	144.9 ± 28.8	50	78.5 ± 15.6	50	p < 0.001*, g = 4.26 (Wilcoxon)
% of Wpeak	68.6 ± 5.5%	24.3 ± 4.3%	37.3 ± 4.3%	24.3 ± 4.3%	p < 0.001*, g = 6.18 (Wilcoxon)
EMGexercise	62.9 ± 7.6		62.6 ± 6.0		p = 0.55, g = 0.05 (Wilcoxon)

Data are means ± SD. N = 19. g: Hedge’s g effect size; HI: Hight-Intensity interval exercise; MOD: Moderate-Intensity interval exercise; bpm: beats per minute; RPE: Ratings of Perceived Exertion; EMGexercise: EMG of right FDI during exercise intervention; “on”: on intervals; “off”: off intervals; Wpeak: peak power

* indicates significance.

RMT was not different between T0 and T1 for HI (Wilcoxon: p = 0.74, g = 0.02) or MOD (Wilcoxon: p = 0.27, g = 0.04). To assess corticospinal excitability, MEP recruitment curves were obtained and the AURC was calculated. Neither HI or MOD induced a significant change in AURC (Fig 3A; INTERVENTION(1,18) = 1.07, p = 0.31, η2 = 0.056, TIME(1,18) = 0.50, p = 0.49, η2 = 0.027, INTERVENTION*TIME(1,18) = 0.01, p = 0.92, η2 = 0.001) and there were no differences between HI and MOD at T0 (Wilcoxon: p = 0.42, g = 0.23). There was high between-subject variability in AURC, as shown by the coefficient of variation (HI T0: 67.3%, HI T1: 53.0%, MOD T0: 69.7%, MOD T1: 78.5%). Percent change in AUC (i.e. T0 to T1) for HI and MOD were not different (Fig 3B; Wilcoxon: p = 0.66, g = 0.03). Individual data are depicted in Fig 3C showing variable responses in AURC to HI and MOD.

Fig 3

MEP recruitment curves.

Data are shown as mean ± standard error. A) HI and MOD did not induce a significant change in AURC. B) Percent change in AURC (i.e. T0 to T1) was not different between HI and MOD. C) Individual data showing variable responses in AURC to HI and MOD.

Discussion

This is the first study to directly compare the effect of acute HI or MOD on exercise-induced neuroplasticity in low fit, young adults. The results suggest that, regardless of intensity, acute exercise does not alter corticospinal excitability.

Our results show that corticospinal excitability was unaltered by either MOD or HI. This is in line with previous work showing no change in corticospinal excitability following moderate- [3-6] and high-intensity exercise [10] in low fit individuals. Increases in corticospinal excitability following exercise have only been observed in high fit individuals after moderate intensity exercise [6,8,9], although some studies have reported to change after moderate intensity exercise [7,11]. Opie and Semmler (2019) also recently showed increased MEP amplitude after both high-intensity interval training and low-intensity continuous exercise, although fitness of the participant sample tested was not reported. There are physiological differences between high and low fit groups that may explain these effects. Compared to low fit groups, high fit participants have greater brain volume [40-42], cerebral blood flow [43-45], and muscle adaptations which may reduce fatigue [46]. Further, high fit individuals show greater levels of IGF-1 [47] and are believed to have greater BDNF uptake into the central nervous system [17], thereby promoting neuroplasticity.

Although we observed no change in corticospinal excitability following HI or MOD in low fit, young adults, it is important to note that these protocols are capable of inducing functional changes in this population. For example, in this population, high-intensity exercise has been shown to improve motor skill consolidation [10], while moderate-intensity exercise reduces reaction time [48], improves memory [49], motor skill acquisition [2,50], and improves motor memory [51]. We note that our findings are limited to the effects of a single session of exercise. It is possible that multiple sessions of MOD or HI may provide a stronger stimulus capable of evoking neuroplasticity in the motor cortex that was not observed following a single bout. However, we note that 6-weeks of high-intensity interval training in low fit individuals did not alter MEPs [52]. Further, it is important to note that these data were obtained from healthy, low fit, young adults. Li et al. [22] recently showed that fast treadmill walking increases MEPs from the lesioned hemisphere in those with chronic stroke. This suggests that high-intensity exercise is a feasible method to increase motor output in stroke rehabilitation. This is in line with research showing that exercise can be used to prime the motor system to facilitate motor learning [53]. While the present study did not show an increase in motor output following high- or moderate-intensity interval exercise, this highlights the importance for research to determine exercise protocols that are capable of increasing motor output in this population.

Although we intended to acquire data from 22 participants, only 19 were available to us. However, a recent study from MacDonald et al. [9] observed an increase in MEPs after moderate intensity cycling in a sample of 15 participants who ranged from sedentary to fit. Therefore, it is unlikely that the lack of effect we observed is due to a limited sample size. One factor that may contribute to the variability in AURC is biological sex. We did not recruit an equal ratio of male to female participants to investigate the effect of biological sex on our data. However, a recent study has reported no effect of biological sex on exercise-induced neuroplasticity. Another factor that may introduce variability is genetic variation. Those with the BDNF val66met polymorphism show reduced BDNF secretion [54] that is linked to attenuated exercise-induced neuroplasticity responses following high-intensity interval exercise [11] and motor training [55]. We did not determine the distribution of participants presenting the val66met polymorphism, and this is a limitation of the study.

Conclusions

The present study investigated the effects of exercise intensity on neuroplasticity in young, low fit adults. Corticospinal excitability was assessed before and after HI and MOD. Results revealed that acute exercise did not alter corticospinal excitably, regardless of exercise intensity. Therefore, we conclude that low fit adults do not demonstrate exercise-induced neuroplasticity as measured herein.

24 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-25228

Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Nelson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please find below reviews from two expert referees. As you will see, they have some concerns about the novelty of the study and aspects of the study methodology and data reporting. Please ensure all concerns are fully addressed in your re-submission.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 08 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Kathryn L. Weston, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

'This work was funded in part by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada grant (NSERC RGPIN-2015-06309) to AJN and the Canada Research Chairs Program.The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study examined the acute effects of moderate and high intensity interval exercise on neuroplasticity in 19 low fit individuals. The paper is well written, and the methods appear to be robust and well executed. I have mainly minor comments and questions for the authors to consider.

Introduction

- In the introduction, I would suggest that the authors need to provide some context of the importance of neuroplasticity and why it is important / necessary to understand the effects of acute exercise on this variable. Because there is limited context provided at present, after reading the manuscript I was left wondering: ‘well, so what?’.

- Line 59-62. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire does not necessarily indicate ‘fitness’, but instead levels physical activity. It is possible to score highly for physical activity but have a relatively poor level of cardiorespiratory fitness, and vice versa. Please consider rewriting this section (and abstract) and modifying table 1 to reflect this.

- Add MEPS acronym to the key in table 1.

- The studies reported in table 1 all appear to have used relatively small sample sizes and one wonders whether the mixed findings are in part related to low statistical power. Is this worth commenting on? I also ask the authors to provide justification of the anticipated statistical power of their own sample size in the methods, given the mixed findings in previous experiments.

- In addition, were MEPS assessed at the same time point post-exercise in these studies? And what was the male/female balance in the study populations?

Methods

- Line 92. Please add all relevant participant characteristics here, e.g. height, mass, VO2peak etc. rather than within figure legends.

- Line 102. Were any criteria employed to determine if a valid maximal effort was achieved during the VO2peak test?

- Were any other controls, other than assessing physical activity, put in place prior to each experimental session? For example, nutritional standardisation, restriction of caffeine etc.? Please add.

- Can the authors provide justification for why 10 minutes post-exercise is most appropriate for assessment of MEPS? This would be useful to add to the paper.

- Similarly, can the authors comment and justify why a comparison between high and moderate intensity interval exercise was chosen as most appropriate. Moderate intensity interval exercise is not typically seen in the literature; it’s more usual to compare HIIT with moderate intensity continuous exercise.

- Given the individual differences in responses shown in figure 2, I’m curious about the reliability of this measurement techniques. Do you have data on this, e.g. coefficients of variation? Please report.

- Can the authors just clarify in the statistics under which circumstances they used paired t-tests or Wilxcoxon signed rank tests.

Results

- Please present IPAQ data in text or in table 2.

- I’m curious about the heart rate data in table 2. There appears to only very small differences in heart rate between on the lower and higher intensity intervals within each bout, much smaller than I would expect especially for HIIT. Is this because you are averaging the heart rate for each minute? If so, it may be better to report a HR during the final 10 seconds of each phase, to better reflect the fluctuations in exercise intensity. For example, based on the HR data, the MOD could be described as continuous rather than interval exercise.

- I find it difficult to pick out meaningful information in figure 3C. I understand it’s purpose, but can I suggest presenting this individual response data in a different way, perhaps as individual lines overlain on a bar chart (with bars not shown), or as a dot plot with each dot representing an individual change score from pre- to post-exercise? Either of these options would make it much easier to pick out the variability in response pre- to post exercise.

Discussion

- Similar to the introduction, please add some context to the discussion r.e. the importance of neuroplasticity, why it matters, and why it is important and noteworthy that you have found no effect of acute exercise in low fit individuals.

- Line 227-229. Please consider rewriting this sentence. It is odd to say that an effect has only been observed in certain circumstances, but then follow it with ‘although not always’.

- Please add a section on the limitations of your experiment including considerations of statistical power and reliability of measurement techniques.

Reviewer #2: This study investigated the effects of two different intensities (moderate and high) of acute exercise on corticospinal excitability. The manuscript addresses a gap in the literature, which concerns the comparison of moderate and high intensity exercise in low fit individuals. The authors could neither find any changes in corticospinal excitability nor intensity dependent changes. It remains unclear why this is the case, hence, precluding any firm interpretation (e.g. interference with design issue.

Although the design fills a gap in the literature, I additionally recommend the authors to expand on the background and introduction by providing more justification for supporting the study design. For example, what is the theoretical relevance of understanding intensity differences in low fit individuals? What is the scientific underpinning leading to the current predictions?

I do have some concerns regarding the current report:

Introduction:

• It would be helpful to add a more detailed section on existing studies of varying intensity load on corticospinal excitability.

• Previous studies, which are also cited here in this manuscript, have examined low-fit subjects to investigate corticospinal excitability after acute exercise. These studies investigated low, moderate and high intensity, albeit in some cases in separate studies. The study by Smith et al also compared two exercise intensities (“low” and “moderate to high”) and could not detect any changes. Although, a direct comparison of moderate and high intensity exercise was not yet investigated, the report would be greatly improved if the derivation of the hypothesis would be described in more detail. The authors need to clarify the new insights and knowledge of their study. This is very important.

Methods:

• The authors report a study design with three sessions. I guess these were performed on separate days. It would be helpful to know the time range in which these sessions were performed (especially with regard to possible carry over effects).

• Alcohol and coffein before exercising can have an influence on the physiological capacity. Did this study control for these influencing parameters?

• In the first paragraph in the methods section the authors report N=19 subjects that participated in this study. On page 6 line 113 the authors wrote: “Eight participants underwent HI in session 2 and MOD in session 3 (described below), while the other half underwent MOD followed by HI.” This suggests that only 16 subjects were included. Moreover, in Table 2 number of subjects was specified as 20. Please clarify how many subjects were included in this study/analysis.

• The authors report a counterbalanced order of intervention (HI-MOD; MOD-HI) within this population. Was the order of intervention also counterbalanced between sexes?

• On Page 5, line 102/103 the authors report that the VO2peak test was performed on a cycle ergometer “Lode Excalibur Sport V2.0”. However, the interventions were performed on a different cycle ergometer “Ergo Race”. Have the authors ensured that the power of the cycle ergometers was validated/the same, e.g. through calibration?

Results:

• The authors report that the IPAQ was acquired on both examination days to ensure that a similar activity level was maintained throughout the study. Please include the IPAQ results. Was the basic activity level maintained?

• The authors report, that they measured the activity of the FDI muscle during exercise to ensure the muscle was inactive. Please report the results.

• Results how a high variability (Figure 3C). Could this be driven by gender differences? It would make sense to exclude gender differences and to include sex as covariate in the statistical analyses.

Discussion:

• The study reported no effects after acute HI or MOD exercise. This has to be discussed in more detail. The authors should try to clarify why there is no effect. Could this also be an experimental design issue? Could the type of exercise intensity play a role (continuous vs interval). Could this be a sample size issue?

• The authors mention a few possible reasons why there might be differences between low and high-fit subjects (page 11). These also need to be discussed in more detail (how do they influence corticospinal excitability).

Minor:

• The authors should review the whole manuscript for punctuation, grammar and spelling.

• Please introduce the abbreviation “RMT” in the text (page 8, line 165).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Nov 2019

See response to reviews uploaded with submission.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

23 Dec 2019

Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults

PONE-D-19-25228R1

Dear Dr. Nelson,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Kathryn L. Weston, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

6 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-25228R1

Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults

Dear Dr. Nelson:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Kathryn L. Weston

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE