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

Contraction intensity modulates spinal excitability during transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked silent period in rectus femoris muscle

PURPOSE

Reduced spinal excitability during the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) silent period (SP) has recently been shown to last longer than previously thought in the upper limbs, as assessed via spinal electrical stimulation. Further, there is reason to expect that contraction intensity affects the duration of the reduced spinal excitability.

METHODS

This study investigated spinal excitability at different time delays within the TMS-evoked SP in m.rectus femoris. Fifteen participants performed non-fatiguing isometric knee extensions at 25%, 50% and 75% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Lumbar stimulation (LS) induced a lumbar-evoked potential (LEP) of 50% resting M-max. TMS stimulator output induced a SP lasting ~ 200 ms. In each contraction, a LEP (unconditioned) was delivered ~ 2-3 s prior to TMS, which was followed by a second LEP (conditioned) 60, 90, 120 or 150 ms into the silent period. Five contractions were performed at each contraction intensity and for each time delay in random order.

RESULTS

Compared to the unconditioned LEP, the conditioned LEP amplitude was reduced (- 28 ± 34%, p = 0.007) only at 60 ms during 25% of MVC. Conditioned LEP amplitudes during 50% and 75% of MVC were reduced at 60 ms (- 37 ± 47%, p = 0.009 and - 37 ± 42%, p = 0.005, respectively) and 150 ms (- 30% ± 37%, p = 0.0083 and - 37 ± 43%, p = 0.005, respectively). LEP amplitude at 90 ms during 50% of MVC also reduced (- 25 ± 35%, p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Reduced spinal excitability is extended during 50% and 75% of MVC. In future, paired TMS-LS could be a potential method to understand changes in spinal excitability during SP (at different contraction intensities) when testing various neurophysiological phenomena.

Spinal stretch reflexes support efficient control of reaching

Efficiently controlling the movement of our hand requires coordinating the motion of multiple joints of the arm. Although it is widely assumed that this type of efficient control is implemented by processing that occurs in the cerebral cortex and brainstem, recent work has shown that spinal circuits can generate efficient motor output that supports keeping the hand in a static location. Here, we show that a spinal pathway can also efficiently control the hand during reaching. In our first experiment, we applied multijoint mechanical perturbations to participants' elbow and wrist as they began reaching toward a target. We found that spinal stretch reflexes evoked in elbow muscles were not proportional to how much the elbow muscles were stretched but instead were dependent on the hand's location relative to the target. In our second experiment, we applied the same elbow and wrist perturbations but had participants change how they grasped the manipulandum, diametrically altering how the same wrist perturbation moved the hand relative to the reach target. We found that changing the arm's orientation diametrically altered how spinal reflexes in the elbow muscles were evoked, and in such a way that were again dependent on the hand's location relative to the target. These findings demonstrate that spinal circuits can help efficiently control the hand during dynamic reaching actions and show that efficient and flexible motor control is not exclusively dependent on processing that occurs within supraspinal regions of the nervous system.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We have previously shown that spinal circuits can rapidly generate reflex responses that efficiently engage multiple joints to support postural hand control of the upper limb. Here, we show that spinal circuits can also rapidly generate such efficient responses during reaching actions.

Interhemispheric inhibition to the biceps brachii during arm cycling

This is the first demonstration of interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) during a locomotor output, arm cycling. IHI was quantified by assessing the depth of the ipsilateral silent period (iSP) evoked via transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. There was a significant reduction in electromyography (EMG) amplitude of the iSP during cycling compared with the control EMG (16.8% ± 17.1%; p < 0.001). Depth and area for measuring the iSP during arm cycling are discussed.

Novelty: This is the first study to demonstrate activation of the cortical circuit, interhemispheric inhibition, during a locomotor output.

Interlimb Responses to Perturbations of Bilateral Movements are Asymmetric

Previous research has revealed rapid feedback mediated responses in one arm to mechanical perturbations applied to the other arm during shared bimanual tasks. We now ask whether these interlimb responses are expressed symmetrically. We tested this question in a virtual reality environment: a cursor representing each hand was used to 'pick up' each end of a virtual bar and place it into a target trough. Near the onset of occasional, unpredictable trials, one arm was perturbed. Regardless of which arm was perturbed, ipsilateral responses were significant during the perturbation. However, responses in the arm contralateral to the perturbation were asymmetric. While the non-dominant arm showed a significant kinematic response to correct the bar orientation when the dominant arm was mechanically perturbed, the dominant arm did not respond when the non-dominant arm was perturbed. We also saw an asymmetric response in early EMG activity, in which only the non-dominant anterior deltoid showed a significant reflex response within 100 milliseconds of perturbation onset in response to dominant arm. This response was consistent with correcting the bar position, but not with correcting its orientation. We conclude that responses to perturbations during bilateral movements are expressed asymmetrically, such that non-dominant arm responses to perturbations to the dominant arm are stronger than dominant arm responses to non-dominant arm perturbations.

Spinal Circuits Mediate a Stretch Reflex Between the Upper Limbs in Humans

Inter-limb reflexes play an important role in coordinating behaviors involving different limbs. Previous studies have demonstrated that human elbow muscles express an inter-limb stretch reflex at long-latency (50-100 ms), a timing consistent with a trans-cortical linkage. Here we probe for inter-limb stretch reflexes in the shoulder muscles of human participants. Unexpected torque pulses displaced one or both shoulders while participants adopted a steady posture against background torques. The results demonstrated inter-limb stretch reflexes occurring at short-latency for both shoulder extensors and flexors; the rapid timing (36-50 ms) must involve a spinal linkage for the two arms. Inter-limb stretch reflexes were also observed at long-latency yet they were opposite to the preceding short-latency; when the short-latency stretch reflex was excitatory then the long-latency stretch reflex was inhibitory and vice versa. Comparing the responses to contralateral arm displacement to those during simultaneous displacement of both arms revealed that inhibitory inter-limb stretch reflexes are independent of within-limb stretch reflexes, but that excitatory inter-limb stretch reflexes are suppressed by within-limb stretch reflexes. Our results provide the first demonstration of short-latency inter-limb stretch reflexes in the upper limb of humans and reveal interacting spinal circuits for within-limb and inter-limb stretch reflexes.

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

The purpose of this study was to evaluate corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward (FWD) and backward (BWD) arm cycling. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation and transmastoid electrical stimulation to elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs), respectively. MEPs and CMEPs were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii during FWD and BWD arm cycling at 2 positions, 6 and 12 o’clock. The 6 o’clock position corresponded to mid-elbow flexion and extension during FWD and BWD cycling, respectively, while 12 o’clock corresponded to mid-elbow extension and flexion during FWD and BWD cycling, respectively. During the flexion phase, MEP and CMEP amplitudes of the biceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling. However, during the extension phase, MEP and CMEP amplitudes were higher during BWD cycling. For the triceps brachii, MEP amplitudes were higher during FWD cycling regardless of phase. However, CMEP amplitudes were phase-dependent. During the flexion phase, CMEPs of the triceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling compared with BWD, but during the extension phase CMEPs were higher during BWD cycling compared with FWD. The data suggest that corticospinal and spinal excitability to the biceps brachii is phase- and direction-dependent. In the triceps brachii, spinal, but not corticospinal, excitability is phase-dependent when comparing FWD and BWD cycling.

Novelty This is the first study to assess corticospinal excitability during FWD and BWD locomotor output. Corticospinal excitability during arm cycling depends on the direction, phase, and muscle being assessed.

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

Background: We examined corticospinal and spinal excitability across multiple power outputs during arm cycling using a weak and strong stimulus intensity. Methods: We elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) in the biceps brachii using magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex and electrical stimulation of corticospinal axons during arm cycling at six different power outputs (i.e., 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 W) and two stimulation intensities (i.e., weak vs. strong). Results: In general, biceps brachii MEP and CMEP amplitudes (normalized to maximal M-wave (M_max)) followed a similar pattern of modulation with increases in cycling intensity at both stimulation strengths. Specifically, MEP and CMEP amplitudes increased up until ~150 W and ~100 W when the weak and strong stimulations were used, respectively. Further increases in cycling intensity revealed no changes on MEP or CMEP amplitudes for either stimulation strength. Conclusions: In general, MEPs and CMEPs changed in a similar manner, suggesting that increases and subsequent plateaus in overall excitability are likely mediated by spinal factors. Interestingly, however, MEP amplitudes were disproportionately larger than CMEP amplitudes as power output increased, despite being initially matched in amplitude, particularly with strong stimulation. This suggests that supraspinal excitability is enhanced to a larger degree than spinal excitability as the power output of arm cycling increases.

Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii is Not Different When Arm Cycling at a Self-Selected or Fixed Cadence

Background: The present study compared corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii muscle during arm cycling at a self-selected and a fixed cadence (SSC and FC, respectively). We hypothesized that corticospinal excitability would not be different between the two conditions. Methods: The SSC was initially performed and the cycling cadence was recorded every 5 s for one minute. The average cadence of the SSC cycling trial was then used as a target for the FC of cycling that the participants were instructed to maintain. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex were recorded from the biceps brachii during each trial of SSC and FC arm cycling. Results: Corticospinal excitability, as assessed via normalized MEP amplitudes (MEPs were made relative to a maximal compound muscle action potential), was not different between groups. Conclusions: Focusing on maintaining a fixed cadence during arm cycling does not influence corticospinal excitability, as assessed via TMS-evoked MEPs.

Shoulder reflexes integrate elbow information at "long-latency" delay throughout a corrective action

Previous studies have demonstrated a progression of function when healthy subjects counter a sudden mechanical load. Short-latency reflexes are linked to local stretch of the particular muscle and its antagonist. Long-latency reflexes integrate stretch information from both local sources and muscles crossing remote joints appropriate for a limb's mechanical interactions. Unresolved is how sensory information is processed throughout the corrective response, since capabilities at some time can be produced by circuits acting at that delay and at briefer delays. One possibility is that local abilities are always expressed at a short-latency delay and integrative abilities are always expressed at a long-latency delay. Alternatively, the neural circuits may be altered over time, leading to a temporal shift in expressing certain abilities; a refractory period could retard integrative responses to a second perturbation, whereas priming could enable integrative responses at short latency. We tested between these three hypotheses in a shoulder muscle by intermixing trials of step torque with either torque pulses ( experiment 1) or double steps of torque ( experiment 2). The second perturbation occurred at 35, 60, and 110 ms after the first perturbation to probe processing throughout the corrective action. The second perturbation reliably evoked short-latency responses in the shoulder muscle linked to only shoulder motion and long-latency responses linked to both shoulder and elbow motion. This pattern is best accounted by the continuous action of controllers with fixed functions. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Sudden displacement of the limb evokes a short-latency reflex, 20-50 ms, based on local muscle stretch and a long-latency reflex based on integrating muscle stretch at different joints. A novel double-perturbation paradigm tested if these abilities are temporally conserved throughout the corrective response or are shifted (retarded or delayed) due to functional changes in the responsible circuits. Multi-joint integration was reliably expressed at a long-latency delay consistent with the continuous operation of circuits with fixed abilities.

Plasticity Induced in the Human Spinal Cord by Focal Muscle Vibration

The spinal cord spinal cord has in the past been considered a hardwired system which responds to inputs in a stereotyped way. A growing body of data have instead demonstrated its ability to retain information and modify its effector capabilities, showing activity-dependent plasticity. Whereas, plasticity in the spinal cord is well documented after different forms of physical exercise, whether exogenous stimulation can induce similar changes is still a matter of debate. This issue is both of scientific and clinical relevance, since at least one form of stimulation, i.e., focal muscle vibration (fMV), is currently used as a treatment for spasticity. The aim of the present study was to assess whether fMV can induce plasticity at the SC level when applied to different muscles of the upper limb. Changes in different electrophysiological measures, such as H-reflex testing homonymous and heteronymous pathways, reciprocal inhibition and somatosensory evoked potentials were used as outcomes. We found that fMV was able to induce long-term depression-like plasticity in specific spinal cord circuits depending on the muscle vibrated. These findings helped understand the basic mechanisms underlying the effects of fMV and might help to develop more advanced stimulation protocols.

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

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 & 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.

Long-latency reflexes for inter-effector coordination reflect a continuous state feedback controller

Successful performance in many everyday tasks requires compensating unexpected mechanical disturbance to our limbs and body. The long-latency reflex plays an important role in this process because it is the fastest response to integrate sensory information across several effectors, like when linking the elbow and shoulder or the arm and body. Despite the dozens of studies on inter-effector long-latency reflexes, there has not been a comprehensive treatment of how these reveal the basic control organization that sets constraints on any candidate model of neural feedback control such as optimal feedback control. We considered three contrasting ways that controllers can be organized: multiple independent controllers vs. a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) controller, a continuous feedback controller vs. an intermittent feedback controller, and a direct MIMO controller vs. a state feedback controller. Following a primer on control theory and review of the relevant evidence, we conclude that continuous state feedback control best describes the organization of inter-effector coordination by the long-latency reflex.

Threshold position control of anticipation in humans: a possible role of corticospinal influences

KEY POINTS

Sudden unloading of preloaded wrist muscles elicits motion to a new wrist position. Such motion is prevented if subjects unload muscles using the contralateral arm (self-unloading). Corticospinal influences originated from the primary motor cortex maintain tonic influences on motoneurons of wrist muscles before sudden unloading but modify these influences prior to the onset and until the end of self-unloading. Results are interpreted based on the previous finding that intentional actions are caused by central, particularly corticospinal, shifts in the spatial thresholds at which wrist motoneurons are activated, thus predetermining the attractor point at which the neuromuscular periphery achieves mechanical balance with environment forces. By maintaining or shifting the thresholds, descending systems let body segments go to the equilibrium position in the respective unloading tasks without the pre-programming of kinematics or muscle activation patterns. The study advances the understanding of how motor actions in general, and anticipation in particular, are controlled.

ABSTRACT

The role of corticospinal (CS) pathways in anticipatory motor actions was evaluated using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary motor cortex projecting to motoneurons (MNs) of wrist muscles. Preloaded wrist flexors were suddenly unloaded by the experimenter or by the subject using the other hand (self-unloading). After sudden unloading, the wrist joint involuntarily flexed to a new position. In contrast, during self-unloading the wrist remained almost motionless, implying that an anticipatory postural adjustment occurred. In the self-unloading task, anticipation was manifested by a decrease in descending facilitation of pre-activated flexor MNs starting ∼72 ms before changes in the background EMG activity. Descending facilitation of extensor MNs began to increase ∼61 ms later. Conversely, these influences remained unchanged before sudden unloading, implying the absence of anticipation. We also tested TMS responses during EMG silent periods produced by brief muscle shortening, transiently resulting in similar EMG levels before the onset and after the end of self-unloading. We found reduced descending facilitation of flexor MNs after self-unloading. To explain why the wrist excursion was minimized in self-unloading due to these changes in descending influences, we relied on previous demonstrations that descending systems pre-set the threshold positions of body segments at which muscles begin to be activated, thus predetermining the equilibrium point to which the system is attracted. Based on this notion, a more consistent explanation of the kinematic, EMG and descending patterns in the two types of unloading is proposed compared to the alternative notion of direct pre-programming of kinematic and/or EMG patterns.

Multisensory components of rapid motor responses to fingertip loading

Tactile and muscle afferents provide critical sensory information for grasp control, yet the contribution of each sensory system during online control has not been clearly identified. More precisely, it is unknown how these two sensory systems participate in online control of digit forces following perturbations to held objects. To address this issue, we investigated motor responses in the context of fingertip loading, which parallels the impact of perturbations to held objects on finger motion and fingerpad deformation, and characterized surface recordings of intrinsic (first dorsal interosseous, FDI) and extrinsic (flexor digitorum superficialis, FDS) hand muscles based on statistical modeling. We designed a series of experiments probing the effects of peripheral stimulation with or without anesthesia of the finger, and of task instructions. Loading of the fingertip generated a motor response in FDI at ~60 ms following the perturbation onset, which was only driven by muscle stretch, as the ring-block anesthesia reduced the gain of the response occurring later than 90 ms, leaving responses occurring before this time unaffected. In contrast, the motor response in FDS was independent of the lateral motion of the finger. This response started at ~90 ms on average and was immediately adjusted to task demands. Altogether these results highlight how a rapid integration of partially distinct sensorimotor circuits supports rapid motor responses to fingertip loading.NEW & NOTEWORTHY To grasp and manipulate objects, the brain uses touch signals related to skin deformation as well as sensory information about motion of the fingers encoded in muscle spindles. Here we investigated how these two sensory systems contribute to feedback responses to perturbation applied to the fingertip. We found distinct response components, suggesting that each sensory system engages separate sensorimotor circuits with distinct functions and latencies.

Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling

This is the first study to examine corticospinal excitability (CSE) to antagonistic muscle groups during arm cycling. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract were used to assess changes in supraspinal and spinal excitability, respectively. TMS induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMES induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii at two positions, mid-elbow flexion and extension, while cycling at 5% and 15% of peak power output. While phase-dependent modulation of MEP and CMEP amplitudes occurred in the biceps brachii, there was no difference between flexion and extension for MEP amplitudes in the triceps brachii and CMEP amplitudes were higher during flexion than extension. Furthermore, MEP amplitudes in both biceps and triceps brachii increased with increased workload. CMEP amplitudes increased with higher workloads in the triceps brachii, but not biceps brachii, though the pattern of change in CMEPs was similar to MEPs. Differences between changes in CSE between the biceps and triceps brachii suggest that these antagonistic muscles may be under different neural control during arm cycling. Putative mechanisms are discussed.

Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of neutral and pronated handgrip positions on corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii during arm cycling. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES), respectively. Participants were seated upright in front on arm cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded from the biceps brachii at two different crank positions (6 and 12 o'clock positions relative to a clock face) while arm cycling with neutral and pronated handgrip positions. Responses were also elicited during tonic elbow flexion to compare/contrast the results to a non-rhythmic motor output. MEP and CMEP amplitudes were significantly larger at the 6 o'clock position while arm cycling with a neutral handgrip position compared to pronated (45.6 and 29.9%, respectively). There were no differences in MEP and CMEP amplitudes at the 12 o'clock position for either handgrip position. For the tonic contractions, MEPs were significantly larger with a neutral vs. pronated handgrip position (32.6% greater) while there were no difference in CMEPs. Corticospinal excitability was higher with a neutral handgrip position for both arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion. While spinal excitability was also higher with a neutral handgrip position during arm cycling, no difference was observed during tonic elbow flexion. These findings suggest that not only is corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii modulated at both the supraspinal and spinal level, but that it is influenced differently between rhythmic arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion.

Cadence-dependent changes in corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii during arm cycling

This is the first study to report the influence of different cadences on the modulation of supraspinal and spinal excitability during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials and transmastoid electrical stimulation-induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps brachii at two separate positions corresponding to elbow flexion and extension (6 and 12 o'clock relative to a clock face, respectively) while arm cycling at 30, 60 and 90 rpm. Motor evoked potential amplitudes increased significantly as cadence increased during both elbow flexion (P < 0.001) and extension (P = 0.027). CMEP amplitudes also increased with cadence during elbow flexion (P < 0.01); however, the opposite occurred during elbow extension (i.e., decreased CMEP amplitude; P = 0.01). The data indicate an overall increase in the excitability of corticospinal neurons which ultimately project to biceps brachii throughout arm cycling as cadence increased. Conversely, changes in spinal excitability as cadence increased were phase dependent (i.e., increased during elbow flexion and decreased during elbow extension). Phase- and cadence-dependent changes in spinal excitability are suggested to be mediated via changes in the balance of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic input to the motor pool, as opposed to changes in the intrinsic properties of spinal motoneurons.

Corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii is higher during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction

Human studies have not assessed corticospinal excitability of an upper-limb prime mover during arm cycling. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether supraspinal and/or spinal motoneuron excitability of the biceps brachii was different between arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction. We hypothesized that spinal motoneuron excitability would be higher during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction. Supraspinal and spinal motoneuron excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. TMS-induced motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMES-induced cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) were assessed at three separate positions (3, 6, and 12 o'clock relative to a clock face) during arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction. MEP amplitudes were 7.2 and 8.8% maximum amplitude of the compound muscle action potential (Mmax) larger during arm cycling compared with a tonic contraction at the 3 (P < 0.001) and 6 o'clock (P < 0.001) positions, respectively. There was no difference between tasks during elbow extension (12 o'clock). CMEP amplitudes were 5.2% Mmax larger during arm cycling compared with a tonic contraction at the 3 o'clock position (P < 0.001) with no differences seen at midflexion (6 o'clock) or extension (12 o'clock). The data indicate an increase in the excitability of corticospinal neurons, which ultimately project to biceps brachii during the elbow flexion portion of arm cycling, and increased spinal motoneuron excitability at the onset of elbow flexion during arm cycling. We conclude that supraspinal and spinal motoneuron excitability are phase- and task-dependent.

Activation and intermuscular coherence of distal arm muscles during proximal muscle contraction

In the human upper extremity (UE), unintended effects of proximal muscle activation on muscles controlling the hand could be an important aspect of motor control due to the necessary coordination of distal and proximal segments during functional activities. This study aimed to elucidate the effects of concurrent activation of elbow muscles on the coordination between hand muscles performing a grip task. Eleven healthy subjects performed precision grip tasks while a constant extension or flexion moment was applied to their elbow joints, inducing a sustained submaximal contraction of elbow muscles to counter the applied torque. Activation of four hand muscles was measured during each task condition using surface electromyography (EMG). When concurrent activation of elbow muscles was induced, significant changes in the activation levels of the hand muscles were observed, with greater effects on the extrinsic finger extensor (23.2 % increase under 30 % elbow extensor activation; p = 0.003) than extrinsic finger flexor (14.2 % increase under 30 % elbow flexor activation; p = 0.130). Elbow muscle activation also induced involuntary changes in the intrinsic thumb flexor activation (44.6 % increase under 30 % elbow extensor activation; p = 0.005). EMG-EMG coherence analyses revealed that elbow muscle activation significantly reduced intermuscular coherence between distal muscle pairs, with its greatest effects on coherence in the β-band (13-25 Hz) (average of 17 % decrease under 30 % elbow flexor activation). The results of this study provide evidence for involuntary, muscle-specific interactions between distal and proximal UE muscles, which may contribute to UE motor performance in health and disease.

Reciprocal inhibition versus unloading response during stretch reflex in humans

Rotation of an upper limb joint produces excitatory stretch reflex peaks M1 and M2 in the stretched muscles and simultaneous decrease in electromyographic (EMG) activity in the shortened muscles. The objective of this study was to examine whether the decreased activity in the antagonists (rINHIB) is purely from unloading of the spindles or receives active inhibition involving inhibitory interneurons. If rINHIB is due only to unloading, then the termination of rINHIB should vary with the duration of perturbation used to elicit stretch reflex, namely shorter stretches should result in shorter values of decreased periods of EMG. To examine this question, rectangular pulses, ranging in duration from 25 to 150 ms, were used to stretch wrist flexors or extensors with a torque motor. These rectangular pulses resulted in joint rotations which peaked at times (T(peak)) ranging from approximately 75-160 ms. As shown by previous authors, when the duration of rotation was shortened, the magnitude of M1 did not change, while the magnitude of M2 decreased. However, termination time of rINHIB in the shortened muscles did not change with change in T(peak), implying thereby that unloading of spindles of the antagonist muscles is not the only mechanism for the reduction in activity and that inhibitory reflex pathways most likely contribute. Possible sources of inhibition are discussed for the short- and long-latency inhibition.