Influence of different transcranial magnetic stimulation current directions on the corticomotor control of lumbar erector spinae muscles during a static task

Sensorimotor Integration in Chronic Low Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

Chronic low back pain (CLBP) impacts on spine movement. Altered sensorimotor integration can be involved. Afferents from the lumbo-pelvic area might be processed differently in CLBP and impact on descending motor control. This study aimed to determine whether afferents influence the corticomotor control of paravertebral muscles in CLBP. Fourteen individuals with CLBP (11 females) and 13 pain-free controls (8 females) were tested with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to measure the motor-evoked potential [MEP] amplitude of paravertebral muscles. Noxious and non-noxious electrical stimulation, and magnetic stimulation in the lumbo-sacral area were used as afferent stimuli and triggered 20 to 200 ms prior to TMS. EMG modulation elicited by afferent stimulation alone was measured to control net motoneuron excitability. MEP/EMG ratio was used as a measure of corticospinal excitability with control of net motoneuron excitability. MEP/EMG ratio was larger at 60, 80 and 100-ms intervals in CLBP compared to controls, and afferent stimulations alone reduced EMG amplitude greater in CLBP than controls at 100 ms. Our results suggest alteration in sensorimotor integration in CLBP highlighted by a greater facilitation of the descending corticospinal input to paravertebral muscles. Our results can help to optimise interventions by better targeting mechanisms.

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).

Influence of coil orientation on corticospinal excitability of trunk muscles during postural and volitional tasks in healthy adults

Introduction

Trunk muscles play a role in maintaining postural stability and performing goal-directed voluntary movements in activities of daily living. Evidence has shown that the primary motor cortex (M1) is involved in modulation of postural control and voluntary movements of the trunk. However, it remains unknown whether the neural circuits within the M1 were recruited to the same extent between a postural task and a goal-directed voluntary task.

Methods

To address this, we examined latencies and amplitudes of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of the erector spinae (ES) with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) figure-of-eight coil oriented to induce latero-medial (LM), posterior-anterior (PA), and anterior-posterior (AP) currents in the M1 in twenty healthy participants during a dynamic shoulder flexion (DSF) task, a postural task requiring anticipatory postural adjustments (APAs), and during a static trunk extension (STE) task, a voluntary task without involvement of APAs.

Results

We found that differences in the AP-LM latency of ES MEP were longer compared with the PA-LM latency in both tasks. Corticospinal excitability was overall greater during the DSF task than during the STE task irrespective of the coil orientation.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that while the same neural circuits in the M1 were recruited to modulate both postural and voluntary control of the trunk, the contribution was greater to the postural task than the voluntary task, possibly due to the requirement of APAs in the task.

The recruitment of indirect waves within primary motor cortex during motor imagery: A directional transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Motor imagery (MI) refers to the mental simulation of an action without overt movement. While numerous transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies provided evidence for a modulation of corticospinal excitability and intracortical inhibition during MI, the neural signature within the primary motor cortex is not clearly established. In the current study, we used directional TMS to probe the modulation of the excitability of early and late indirect waves (I-waves) generating pathways during MI. Corticospinal responses evoked by TMS with posterior-anterior (PA) and anterior-posterior (AP) current flow within the primary motor cortex evoke preferentially early and late I-waves, respectively. Seventeen participants were instructed to stay at rest or to imagine maximal isometric contractions of the right flexor carpi radialis. We demonstrated that the increase of corticospinal excitability during MI is greater with PA than AP orientation. By using paired-pulse stimulations, we confirmed that short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) increased during MI in comparison to rest with PA orientation, whereas we found that it decreased with AP orientation. Overall, these results indicate that the pathways recruited by PA and AP orientations that generate early and late I-waves are differentially modulated by MI.

A Comprehensive Review of Pain Interference on Postural Control: From Experimental to Chronic Pain

Motor control, movement impairment, and postural control recovery targeted in rehabilitation could be affected by pain. The main objective of this comprehensive review is to provide a synthesis of the effect of experimental and chronic pain on postural control throughout the available literature. After presenting the neurophysiological pathways of pain, we demonstrated that pain, preferentially localized in the lower back or in the leg induced postural control alteration. Although proprioceptive and cortical excitability seem modified with pain, spinal modulation assessment might provide a new understanding of the pain phenomenon related to postural control. The literature highlights that the motor control of trunk muscles in patient presenting with lower back pain could be dichotomized in two populations, where the first over-activates the trunk muscles, and the second under-activates the trunk muscles; both generate an increase in tissue loading. Taking all these findings into account will help clinician to provide adapted treatment for managing both pain and postural control.

The influence of experimental low back pain on neural networks involved in the control of lumbar erector spinae muscles

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) often modifies spine motor control, but the neural origin of these motor control changes remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the impact of experimental low back pain on the excitability of cortical, subcortical, and spinal networks involved in the control of back muscles.

METHOD

Thirty healthy subjects were recruited and allocated to Pain (capsaicin and heat) or Control (heat) groups. Corticospinal excitability (motor-evoked potential-MEP) and intracortical networks were assessed by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, respectively. Electrical vestibular stimulation was applied to assess vestibulospinal excitability (vestibular MEP-VMEP), and the stretch reflex for excitability of the spinal or supraspinal loop (R1 and R2, respectively). Evoked back motor responses were measured before, during and after pain induction. Nonparametric rank-based ANOVA determined if pain modulated motor neural networks.

RESULTS

A decrease of R1 amplitude was present after the pain disappearance (p=0.01) whereas an increase was observed in the control group (p=0.03) compared to the R1 amplitude measured at pre-pain and pre-heat period, respectively (Group x Time interaction - p<0.001). No difference in MEP and VMEP amplitude was present during and after pain (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

During experimental LBP, no change in cortical, subcortical, or spinal networks was observed. After pain disappearance, the reduction of the R1 amplitude without modification of MEP and VMEP amplitude suggest a reduction in spinal excitability potentially combined with an increase in descending drives. The absence of effect during pain needs to be further explored.

Effects of different modalities of afferent stimuli of the lumbo-sacral area on control of lumbar paravertebral muscles

Somatosensory feedback to the central nervous system is essential to plan, perform and refine spine motor control. However, the influence of somatosensory afferent input from the trunk on the motor output to trunk muscles has received little attention. The objective was to compare the effects of distinct modalities of afferent stimulation on the net motoneuron and corticomotor excitability of paravertebral muscles. Fourteen individuals were recruited. Modulation of corticospinal excitability (motor-evoked potential [MEP]) of paravertebral muscles was measured when afferent stimuli (cutaneous noxious and non-noxious, muscle contraction) were delivered to the trunk at 10 intervals prior to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Each peripheral stimulation was applied alone, and subsequent EMG modulation was measured to control for net motoneuron excitability. MEP modulation and MEP/EMG ratio were used as measures of corticospinal excitability with and without control of net motoneuron excitability, respectively. MEP and EMG modulation were smaller after evoked muscle contraction than after cutaneous noxious and non-noxious stimuli. MEP/EMG ratio was not different between stimulation types. Both MEP and EMG amplitudes were reduced after evoked muscle contraction, but not when expressed as MEP/EMG ratio. Noxious and non-noxious stimulation had limited impact on all variables. Distinct modalities of peripheral afferent stimulation of the lumbo-sacral area differently modulated responses of paravertebral muscles, but without an influence on corticospinal excitability with control of net motoneuron excitability. Muscle stimulation reduced paravertebral activity and was best explained by spinal mechanisms. The impact of afferent stimulation on back muscles differs from the effects reported for limb muscles.

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Upper Limb Muscle Strength and Endurance in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

Whether transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can improve upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy subjects is still controversial. This article reviews the relevant literature on the use of tDCS to improve upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy individuals.

Methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science until September 4, 2021. Randomized parallel or crossover experimental studies on the effects of tDCS on upper limb muscle strength and endurance in healthy individuals were included. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to evaluate methodological quality and analyze the combined effect of the included literature.

Results

Twelve studies (189 participants) were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies (146 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the control group, the tDCS intervention had no significant effect on improving upper limb muscle strength [I² = 0%, 95% CI (−0.79, 0.23), p = 0.98, MD = 0.01]. In this analysis, tDCS had a significant heterogeneity (I² = 87%) in improving upper limb muscle endurance compared with the control group. After the subgroup analysis and the sensitivity analysis, the source of heterogeneity was excluded. The final results showed that tDCS had a significant effect on improving upper limb muscle endurance [I² = 0%, 95% CI (1.91, 4.83), p < 0.00001, MD = 3.37].

Conclusions

tDCS has no significant effect on improvement of upper limb muscle strength, but has a significant effect on improving upper limb endurance performance (especially on the non-dominant side).