| Literature DB >> 35447968 |
Ali Khan1, Jyotpal Singh1, J Patrick Neary1, Cameron S Mang1.
Abstract
Cardiorespiratory or aerobic exercise immediately after practice of an upper-extremity motor skill task can facilitate skill consolidation, as demonstrated by enhanced performances at 24 h and 7-day retention tests. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of acute cardiorespiratory exercise on motor skill consolidation when skill practice involved low and high levels of contextual interference introduced through repetitive and interleaved practice schedules, respectively. Forty-eight young healthy adults were allocated to one of four groups who performed either repetitive or interleaved practice of a pinch grip motor sequence task, followed by either a period of seated rest or a bout of high-intensity interval cycling. At pre- and post-practice and 24 h and 7-day retention tests, we assessed motor skill performance and β-band (15-35 Hz) intermuscular coherence using surface electromyography (EMG) collected from the abductor pollicis brevis and first dorsal interosseous. At the 7-day retention test, off-line consolidation was enhanced in the cardiorespiratory exercise relative to the rest group, but only among individuals who performed interleaved motor skill practice (p = 0.02). Similarly, at the 7-day retention test, β-band intermuscular coherence increased to a greater extent in the exercise group than in the rest group for those who performed interleaved practice (p = 0.02). Under the present experimental conditions, cardiorespiratory exercise preferentially supported motor skill consolidation and change in intermuscular coherence when motor skill practice involved higher rather than lower levels of contextual interference.Entities:
Keywords: contextual interference; electromyography; exercise; intermuscular coherence; motor learning
Year: 2022 PMID: 35447968 PMCID: PMC9030594 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12040436
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1Overview of study design. MVC, maximum voluntary contraction; VTT, visuomotor tracking task; G1–G4, Groups 1–4; 24 h, 24 h; 7d, 7-day.
Figure 2Depiction of visuomotor tracking task (VTT). Profiles A–D represent the four different target profiles that were used in the study.
Participant characteristics.
| REP + REST | INL + REST | REP + EX | INL + EX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 12 | 13 | 12 | 11 |
| Age (years) | 23.2 ± 4.9 | 20.8 ± 2.8 | 23.1 ± 4.4 | 22.7 ± 5.5 |
| Sex (M/F) | 8/4 | 8/5 | 10/2 | 10/1 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.8 ± 4.4 | 22.2 ± 3.4 | 24.3 ± 3.3 | 26.3 ± 5.2 |
| VO2 peak (mL/min/kg) * | 37.4 ± 1.8 | 35.8 ± 7.8 | 37.2 ± 9.3 | 42.1 ± 8.1 |
| IPAQ score (H/M/L) | 8/2/2 | 8/1/4 | 8/2/2 | 7/3/1 |
| 175.5 ± 50.0 | 181.5 ± 56.8 | 183.3 ± 34.5 | 215.5 ± 55.7 | |
| VTT Repetitive Pre-ToT% | 52.9 ± 12.1 | 53.6 ± 8.2 | 55.1 ± 8.0 | 54.3 ± 7.2 |
| VTT Repetitive Post-ToT% | 69.1 ± 7.7 | 71.6 ± 5.8 | 74.1 ± 6.2 | 72.1 ± 8.2 |
| VTT Repetitive Post-to-Pre ToT% ratio | 1.36 ± 0.26 | 1.35 ± 0.16 | 1.36 ± 0.13 | 1.34 ± 0.16 |
| VTT Interleaved Pre-ToT% | 57.8 ± 9.7 | 60.2 ± 7.7 | 61.6 ± 11.6 | 62.5 ± 6.7 |
| VTT Interleaved Post-ToT% | 70.0 ± 8.3 | 73.3 ± 5.9 | 73.2 ± 6.2 | 72.0 ± 7.0 |
| VTT Interleaved Post-to-Pre ToT% ratio | 1.23 ± 0.2 | 1.23 ± 0.12 | 1.22 ± 0.23 | 1.16 ± 0.11 |
| Coh Pre-Ax (0–1) | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 0.10 ± 0.11 | 0.07 ± 0.04 |
| Coh Post-Ax (0–1) | 0.06 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.07 | 0.10 ± 0.08 | 0.05 ± 0.03 |
| Coh Post-to-Pre ratio | 1.25 ± 0.52 | 1.75 ± 2.29 | 1.34 ± 0.95 | 0.83 ± 0.26 |
* VO2 peak data were not available for one participant in the REP + REST group, two participants in the REP + EX group, and one participant in the INL + EX group as a result of COVID-19-related research restrictions that precluded measurement of expired gases. For standardized exercise bouts, these individuals were assigned workloads consistent with the average used for males or females in prior study participants. The workloads were then adjusted in real time to obtain a rating of perceived exertion between “Very hard” and “Extremely hard” (i.e., 17–19/20). REP + REST, repetitive schedule followed by rest; INL + REST, interleaved schedule followed by rest; REP + EX, repetitive schedule followed by exercise; INL + EX, interleaved schedule followed by exercise; M, male; F, female; VO2, volume of oxygen consumption; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire; Wmax, maximum power output from graded exercise test; ToT, time on target; Coh, coherence. Results are presented as mean ± SD.
Participant reports of sleep, sleepiness, attention, and effort.
| REP + REST | INL + REST | REP + EX | INL + EX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hours slept prior to: | ||||
| (i) VTT Practice | 6.4 ± 1.4 | 6.9 ± 1.4 | 7.2 ± 1.0 | 6.2 ± 1.8 |
| (ii) 24 h Ret | 7.3 ± 1.7 | 6.8 ± 1.4 | 7.0 ± 1.3 | 7.7 ± 1.4 |
| (iii) 7 d Ret | 7.1 ± 1.5 | 6.7 ± 2.2 | 7.4 ± 1.8 | 7.4 ± 1.0 |
| Difference from typical night’s sleep: | ||||
| (i) VTT Practice | −1.1 ± 1.7 | −0.2 ± 1.3 | −0.1 ± 0.8 | −0.9 ± 1.8 |
| (ii) 24 h Ret | −0.2 ± 1.9 | −0.3 ± 1.1 | −0.5 ± 1.0 | 0.8 ± 1.4 |
| (iii) 7 d Ret | −0.4 ± 1.0 | −0.4 ± 1.9 | 0.1 ± 1.4 | 0.3 ± 1.1 |
| Stanford Sleepiness Scale: | ||||
| (i) VTT Practice | 2.4 ± 1.4 | 3.0 ± 1.4 | 2.6 ± 1.4 | 3.3 ± 1.6 |
| (ii) 24 h Ret | 1.8 ± 0.8 | 2.2 ± 1.1 | 2.2 ± 0.9 | 2.5 ± 0.9 |
| (iii) 7 d Ret | 1.7 ± 0.7 | 2.2 ± 0.8 | 2.0 ± 0.7 | 2.1 ± 0.9 |
| Attention VAS (0–10): | ||||
| (i) VTT Practice | 7.5 ± 1.2 | 7.4 ± 1.4 | 7.8 ± 1.7 | 7.6 ± 1.8 |
| (ii) 24 h Ret | 8.9 ± 0.7 | 7.9 ± 2.5 | 8.5 ± 1.4 | 8.2 ± 1.1 |
| (iii) 7 d Ret | 8.8 ± 1.2 | 8.0 ± 2.1 | 8.7 ± 1.3 | 8.4 ± 1.2 |
| Effort VAS (0–10): | ||||
| (i) VTT Practice | 9.4 ± 0.6 | 8.9 ± 2.1 | 8.9 ± 1.1 | 8.9 ± 1.5 |
| (ii) 24 h Ret | 9.3 ± 0.8 | 8.6 ± 2.3 | 9.3 ± 0.7 | 9.2 ± 0.7 |
| (iii) 7 d Ret | 9.2 ± 1.1 | 9.2 ± 1.7 | 9.5 ± 0.6 | 8.9 ± 1.1 |
REP + REST, repetitive schedule followed by rest; INL + REST, interleaved schedule followed by rest; REP + EX, repetitive schedule followed by exercise; INL + EX, interleaved schedule followed by exercise; h, hour; d, day; Ret, retention; VAS, visual analog scale. Results are presented as mean ± SD.
Figure 3Visuomotor tracking task (VTT) results. Panels (A,B) depict raw time on target (ToT%) data for repetitive (A) and interleaved (B) tests when averaged across participants in each group for each time point. Panels (C,D) show average change in ToT% for repetitive (C) and interleaved tests (D) over the consolidation periods for each group, with performance at each retention test expressed as a ratio relative to post-practice test performance. Error bars in panels (A–D) reflect standard error. Asterisks (*) in panels (C,D) denote statistically significant differences between groups. Panels (E,F) show individual data points contributing to the group averages in (C,D). Horizontal lines in panels (E,F) represent 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 4Intermuscular coherence data from representative participants and time points. Panel (A) shows data obtained from an individual in the interleaved practice and rest group. Panel (B) depicts data obtained from an individual in the interleaved practice and exercise group.
Figure 5Intermuscular coherence results. Panels (A,B) depict raw (A) and log-transformed (B) intermuscular beta coherence data when averaged across participants in each group for each time point. Panels (C,D) show average change in mean beta coherence (C) and log-transformed mean beta coherence (D) over the consolidation periods for each group, with coherence at each retention test expressed as a ratio relative to post-practice coherence. Error bars in panels (A–D) reflect standard error. Asterisks (*) in panels (C,D) denote statistically significant differences between groups. Panels (E,F) show individual data points contributing to the group averages in (C,D). Horizontal lines in panels (E,F) represent 95% confidence intervals.