Motor cortical circuits contribute to crossed facilitation of trunk muscles induced by rhythmic arm movement

Corticomotor Control of Lumbar Erector Spinae in Postural and Voluntary Tasks: The Influence of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Current Direction

Lumbar erector spinae (LES) contribute to spine postural and voluntary control. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) preferentially depolarizes different neural circuits depending on the direction of electrical currents evoked in the brain. Posteroanterior current (PA-TMS) and anteroposterior (AP-TMS) current would, respectively, depolarize neurons in the primary motor cortex (M1) and the premotor cortex. These regions may contribute differently to LES control. This study examined whether responses evoked by PA- and AP-TMS are different during the preparation and execution of LES voluntary and postural tasks. Participants performed a reaction time task. A Warning signal indicated to prepare to flex shoulders (postural; n = 15) or to tilt the pelvis (voluntary; n = 13) at the Go signal. Single- and paired-pulse TMS (short-interval intracortical inhibition-SICI) were applied using PA- and AP-TMS before the Warning signal (baseline), between the Warning and Go signals (preparation), or 30 ms before the LES onset (execution). Changes from baseline during preparation and execution were calculated in AP/PA-TMS. In the postural task, MEP amplitude was higher during the execution than that during preparation independently of the current direction (p = 0.0002). In the voluntary task, AP-MEP amplitude was higher during execution than that during preparation (p = 0.016). More PA inhibition (SICI) was observed in execution than that in preparation (p = 0.028). Different neural circuits are preferentially involved in the two motor tasks assessed, as suggested by different patterns of change in execution of the voluntary task (AP-TMS, increase; PA-TMS, no change). Considering that PA-TMS preferentially depolarize neurons in M1, it questions their importance in LES voluntary control.

Home-based arm cycling exercise improves trunk control in persons with incomplete spinal cord injury: an observational study

Arm cycling is used for cardiorespiratory rehabilitation but its therapeutic effects on the neural control of the trunk after spinal cord injury (SCI) remain unclear. We investigated the effects of single session of arm cycling on corticospinal excitability, and the feasibility of home-based arm cycling exercise training on volitional control of the erector spinae (ES) in individuals with incomplete SCI. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation, we assessed motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in the ES before and after 30 min of arm cycling in 15 individuals with SCI and 15 able-bodied controls (Experiment 1). Both groups showed increased ES MEP size after the arm cycling. The participants with SCI subsequently underwent a 6-week home-based arm cycling exercise training (Experiment 2). MEP amplitudes and activity of the ES, and movements of the trunk during reaching, self-initiated rapid shoulder flexion, and predicted external perturbation tasks were measured. After the training, individuals with SCI reached further and improved trajectory of the trunk during the rapid shoulder flexion task, accompanied by increased ES activity and MEP amplitudes. Exercise adherence was excellent. We demonstrate preserved corticospinal drive after a single arm cycling session and the effects of home-based arm cycling exercise training on trunk function in individuals with SCI.

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used to investigate central nervous system mechanisms underlying motor control. Despite thousands of TMS studies on neurophysiological underpinnings of corticomotor control, a large majority of studies have focused on distal muscles, and little is known about axial muscles (e.g., low back muscles). Yet, differences between corticomotor control of low back and distal muscles (e.g., gross vs. fine motor control) suggest differences in the neural circuits involved. This systematic review of the literature aims at detailing the organisation and neural circuitry underlying corticomotor control of low back muscles tested with TMS in healthy humans.

Methods

The literature search was performed in four databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline (Ovid) and Web of science) up to May 2022. Included studies had to use TMS in combination with EMG recording of paraspinal muscles (between T12 and L5) in healthy participants. Weighted average was used to synthesise quantitative study results.

Results

Forty-four articles met the selection criteria. TMS studies of low back muscles provided consistent evidence of contralateral and ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (with longer ipsilateral latencies) as well as of short intracortical inhibition/facilitation. However, few or no studies using other paired pulse protocols were found (e.g., long intracortical inhibition, interhemispheric inhibition). In addition, no study explored the interaction between different cortical areas using dual TMS coil protocol (e.g., between primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area).

Discussion

Corticomotor control of low back muscles are distinct from hand muscles. Our main findings suggest: (i) bilateral projections from each single primary motor cortex, for which contralateral and ipsilateral tracts are probably of different nature (contra: monosynaptic; ipsi: oligo/polysynaptic) and (ii) the presence of intracortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits in M1 influencing the excitability of the contralateral corticospinal cells projecting to low back muscles. Understanding of these mechanisms are important for improving the understanding of neuromuscular function of low back muscles and to improve the management of clinical populations (e.g., low back pain, stroke).

Corticomotor Plasticity Underlying Priming Effects of Motor Imagery on Force Performance

The neurophysiological processes underlying the priming effects of motor imagery (MI) on force performance remain poorly understood. Here, we tested whether the priming effects of embedded MI practice involved short-term changes in corticomotor connectivity. In a within-subjects counterbalanced experimental design, participants (n = 20) underwent a series of experimental sessions consisting of successive maximal isometric contractions of elbow flexor muscles. During inter-trial rest periods, we administered MI, action observation (AO), and a control passive recovery condition. We collected electromyograms (EMG) from both agonists and antagonists of the force task, in addition to electroencephalographic (EEG) brain potentials during force trials. Force output was higher during MI compared to AO and control conditions (both p < 0.01), although fatigability was similar across experimental conditions. We also found a weaker relationship between triceps brachii activation and force output during MI and AO compared to the control condition. Imaginary coherence topographies of alpha (8−12 Hz) oscillations revealed increased connectivity between EEG sensors from central scalp regions and EMG signals from agonists during MI, compared to AO and control. Present results suggest that the priming effects of MI on force performance are mediated by a more efficient cortical drive to motor units yielding reduced agonist/antagonist coactivation.

Timing is everything: Event-related transcranial direct current stimulation improves motor adaptation

BACKGROUND

There is a current discord between the foundational theories underpinning motor learning and how we currently apply transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS): the former is dependent on tight coupling of events while the latter is conducted with very low temporal resolution.

OBJECTIVE

Here we aimed to investigate the temporal specificity of stimulation by applying TDCS in short epochs, and coincidentally with movement, during a motor adaptation task.

METHODS

Participants simultaneously adapted a reaching movement to two opposing velocity-dependent force-fields (clockwise and counter-clockwise), distinguished by a contextual leftward or rightward shift in the task display and cursor location respectively. Brief bouts (<3 s) of event-related TDCS (er-TDCS) were applied over M1 or the cerebellum during movements for only one of these learning contexts.

RESULTS

We show that when short duration stimulation is applied to the cerebellum and yoked to movement, only those reaching movements performed simultaneously with stimulation are selectively enhanced, whilst similar and interleaved movements are left unaffected. We found no evidence of improved adaptation following M1 er-TDCS, as participants displayed equivalent levels of error during both stimulated and unstimulated movements. Similarly, participants in the sham stimulation group adapted comparably during left and right-shift trials.

CONCLUSIONS

It is proposed that the coupling of cerebellar stimulation and movement influences timing-dependent (i.e. Hebbian-like) mechanisms of plasticity to facilitate enhanced learning in the stimulated context.

Task- and Intensity-Dependent Modulation of Arm-Trunk Neural Interactions in the Corticospinal Pathway in Humans

Most human movements require coordinated activation of multiple muscles. Although many studies reported associations between arm, leg, and trunk muscles during functional tasks, their neural interaction mechanisms still remain unclear. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate arm-trunk or arm-leg neural interactions in the corticospinal tract during different arm muscle contractions. Specifically, we examined corticospinal excitability of the erector spinae (ES; trunk extensor), rectus abdominis (RA; trunk flexor), and tibialis anterior (TA; leg) muscles while participants exerted: (1) wrist flexion and (2) wrist extension isometric contraction at various contraction intensity levels ranging from rest to 50% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) effort. Corticospinal excitability was assessed using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited through motor cortex transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). Results showed that ES MEPs were facilitated even at low contractions (>5% MVC) during wrist flexion and extension, while stronger contractions (>25% MVC) were required to facilitate RA MEPs. The extent of facilitation of ES MEPs depended on contraction intensity of wrist extension, but not flexion. Moreover, TA MEPs were facilitated at low contractions (>5% MVC) during wrist flexion and extension, but contraction intensity dependence was only shown during stronger wrist extension contractions (>25% MVC). In conclusion, trunk extensor corticospinal excitability seems to depend on the task and the intensity of arm contraction, while this is not true for trunk flexor and leg muscles. Our study therefore demonstrated task- and intensity-dependent neural interactions of arm-trunk connections, which may underlie anatomic and/or functional substrates of these muscle pairs.