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

Neuromechanical Differences between Pronated and Supinated Forearm Positions during Upper-Body Wingate Tests

Arm-cycling is a versatile exercise modality with applications in both athletic enhancement and rehabilitation, yet the influence of forearm orientation remains understudied. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the impact of forearm position on upper-body arm-cycling Wingate tests. Fourteen adult males (27.3 ± 5.8 years) underwent bilateral assessments of handgrip strength in standing and seated positions, followed by pronated and supinated forward arm-cycling Wingate tests. Electromyography (EMG) was recorded from five upper-extremity muscles, including anterior deltoid, triceps brachii lateral head, biceps brachii, latissimus dorsi, and brachioradialis. Simultaneously, bilateral normal and propulsion forces were measured at the pedal-crank interface. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE), power output, and fatigue index were recorded post-test. The results showed that a pronated forearm position provided significantly (p < 0.05) higher normal and propulsion forces and triceps brachii muscle activation patterns during arm-cycling. No significant difference in RPE was observed between forearm positions (p = 0.17). A positive correlation was found between seated handgrip strength and peak power output during the Wingate test while pronated (dominant: p = 0.01, r = 0.55; non-dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.49) and supinated (dominant: p = 0.03, r = 0.51; don-dominant: p = 0.04, r = 0.47). Fatigue changed the force and EMG profile during the Wingate test. In conclusion, this study enhances our understanding of forearm position's impact on upper-body Wingate tests. These findings have implications for optimizing training and performance strategies in individuals using arm-cycling for athletic enhancement and rehabilitation.

Effect of muscle length in a handgrip task on corticomotor excitability of extrinsic and intrinsic hand muscles under resting and submaximal contraction conditions

The neurophysiological mechanisms underlying muscle force control for different wrist postures still need to be better understood. To further elucidate these mechanisms, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of wrist posture on the corticospinal excitability by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of extrinsic (flexor [FCR] and extensor carpi radialis [ECR]) and intrinsic (flexor pollicis brevis (FPB)) muscles at rest and during a submaximal handgrip strength task. Fourteen subjects (24.06 ± 2.28 years) without neurological or motor disorders were included. We assessed how the wrist posture (neutral: 0°; flexed: +45°; extended: -45°) affects maximal handgrip strength (HGSmax ) and the motor evoked potentials (MEP) amplitudes during rest and active muscle contractions. HGSmax was higher at 0° (133%) than at -45° (93.6%; p < 0.001) and +45° (73.9%; p < 0.001). MEP amplitudes were higher for the FCR at +45° (83.6%) than at -45° (45.2%; p = 0.019) and at +45° (156%; p < 0.001) and 0° (146%; p = 0.014) than at -45° (106%) at rest and active condition, respectively. Regarding the ECR, the MEP amplitudes were higher at -45° (113%) than at +45° (60.8%; p < 0.001) and 0° (72.6%; p = 0.008), and at -45° (138%) than +45° (96.7%; p = 0.007) also at rest and active conditions, respectively. In contrast, the FPB did not reveal any difference among wrist postures and conditions. Although extrinsic and intrinsic hand muscles exhibit overlapping cortical representations and partially share the same innervation, they can be modulated differently depending on the biomechanical constraints.

Location-specific cutaneous electrical stimulation of the footsole modulates corticospinal excitability to the plantarflexors and dorsiflexors during standing

Non‐noxious electrical stimulation to distinct locations of the foot sole evokes location‐specific cutaneous reflex responses in lower limb muscles. These reflexes occur at latencies that may enable them to be mediated via a transcortical pathway. Corticospinal excitability to the plantarflexors and dorsiflexors was measured in 16 participants using motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Spinal excitability was measured in eight of the original participants using cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs). Measurements were collected with and without preceding cutaneous stimulus to either the heel (HEEL) or metatarsal (MET) locations of the foot sole, and evoked potentials were elicited to coincide with the arrival of the cutaneous volley at either the motor cortex or spinal cord. Plantarflexor MEPs and CMEPs were facilitated with cutaneous stimulation to the HEEL for MEPs (soleus p = 0.04, medial gastrocnemius (MG) p = 0.017) and CMEPs (soleus p = 0.047 and MG p = 0.015), but they were unchanged following MET stimulation for MEPs or CMEPs. Dorsiflexor MEPs were unchanged with cutaneous stimulation at either location, but dorsiflexor CMEPs increased with cutaneous stimulation (p = 0.05). In general, the increase in CMEP amplitudes was larger than the increase in MEP amplitudes, indicating that an increase in spinal excitability likely explains most of the increase in corticospinal excitability. The larger change observed in the CMEP also indicates that excitability from supraspinal sources likely decreased, which could be due to a net change in the excitability of intracortical circuits. This study provides evidence that cutaneous reflexes from foot sole skin are likely influenced by a transcortical pathway.

Moving forward: methodological considerations for assessing corticospinal excitability during rhythmic motor output in humans

The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess the excitability of the central nervous system to further understand the neural control of human movement is expansive. The majority of the work performed to-date has assessed corticospinal excitability either at rest or during relatively simple isometric contractions. The results from this work are not easily extrapolated to rhythmic, dynamic motor outputs, given that corticospinal excitability is task-, phase-, intensity-, direction-, and muscle-dependent (Power KE, Lockyer EJ, Forman DA, Button DC. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 43: 1176-1185, 2018). Assessing corticospinal excitability during rhythmic motor output, however, involves technical challenges that are to be overcome, or at the minimum considered, when attempting to design experiments and interpret the physiological relevance of the results. The purpose of this narrative review is to highlight the research examining corticospinal excitability during a rhythmic motor output and, importantly, to provide recommendations regarding the many factors that must be considered when designing and interpreting findings from studies that involve limb movement. To do so, the majority of work described herein refers to work performed using arm cycling (arm pedaling or arm cranking) as a model of a rhythmic motor output used to examine the neural control of human locomotion.

Neuromuscular fatigue of the elbow flexors during repeated maximal arm cycling sprints: the effects of forearm position

Repeated sprint exercise (RSE) is often used to induce neuromuscular fatigue (NMF). It is currently not known whether NMF is influenced by different forearm positions during arm cycling RSE. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a pronated versus supinated forearm position on elbow flexor NMF during arm cycling RSE. Participants (n = 12) completed ten 10-s maximal arm cycling sprints interspersed by 60 s of rest on 2 separate days using either a pronated or supinated forearm position. All sprints were performed on an arm cycle ergometer in a reverse direction. Prior to and following RSE, NMF measurements (i.e., maximal voluntary contraction (MVC), potentiated twitch (PT), electromyography median frequencies) were recorded. Sprint performance measures, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and pain were also recorded. Irrespective of forearm position, sprint performance decreased as sprint number increased. These decreases were accompanied by significant increases in RPE (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.869) and pain (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.745). Participants produced greater power output during pronated compared with supinated sprinting (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.728). At post-sprinting, the percentage decrease in elbow flexor MVC and PT force from pre-sprinting was significantly greater following supinated than pronated sprinting (p < 0.001), suggesting greater peripheral fatigue occurred in this position. The data suggest that supinated arm cycling RSE results in inferior performance and greater NMF compared with pronated arm cycling RSE. Novelty: NMF of the elbow flexors is influenced by forearm position during arm cycling RSE. Supinated arm cycling sprints resulted in worse repeated sprint performance and also greater NMF than pronated RSE.

Changes in muscle activity during the flexion and extension phases of arm cycling as an effect of power output are muscle-specific

Arm cycling is commonly used in rehabilitation settings for individuals with motor impairments in an attempt to facilitate neural plasticity, potentially leading to enhanced motor function in the affected limb(s). Studies examining the neural control of arm cycling, however, typically cycle using a set cadence and power output. Given the importance of motor output intensity, typically represented by the amplitude of electromyographic (EMG) activity, on neural excitability, surprisingly little is known about how arm muscle activity is modulated using relative workloads. Thus, the objective of this study was to characterize arm muscle activity during arm cycling at different relative workloads. Participants (n = 11) first completed a 10-second maximal arm ergometry sprint to determine peak power output (PPO) followed by 11 randomized trials of 20-second arm cycling bouts ranging from 5–50% of PPO (5% increments) and a standard 25 W workload. All submaximal trials were completed at 60 rpm. Integrated EMG amplitude (iEMG) was assessed from the biceps brachii, brachioradialis, triceps brachii, flexor carpi radialis, extensor carpi radialis and anterior deltoid of the dominant arm. Arm cycling was separated into two phases, flexion and extension, relative to the elbow joint for all comparisons. As expected, iEMG amplitude increased during both phases of cycling for all muscles examined. With the exception of the triceps brachii and extensor carpi radialis, iEMG amplitudes differed between the flexion and extension phases. Finally, there was a linear relationship between iEMG amplitude and the %PPO for all muscles during both elbow flexion and extension.

Posture-dependent neuromuscular contributions to three-dimensional isometric shoulder torque generation

This study is the first to identify the muscle synergies underlying three-dimensional isometric shoulder torque generation. Although the overall structure of these synergies was unaffected by arm posture, the weighted contributions of several muscles composing two synergy patterns changed as a function of the elevation or plane of elevation of the shoulder. Our findings provide valuable insight for the development of targeted interventions for the restoration of shoulder function after neuromuscular or orthopedic pathologies.

The effects of forearm position and contraction intensity on cortical and spinal excitability during a submaximal force steadiness task of the elbow flexors

Elbow flexor force steadiness is less with the forearm pronated (PRO) compared with neutral (NEU) or supinated (SUP) and may relate to neural excitability. Although not tested in a force steadiness paradigm, lower spinal and cortical excitability was observed separately for biceps brachii in PRO, possibly dependent on contractile status at the time of assessment. This study aimed to investigate position-dependent changes in force steadiness as well as spinal and cortical excitability at a variety of contraction intensities. Thirteen males (26 ± 7 yr; means ± SD) performed three blocks (PRO, NEU, and SUP) of 24 brief (~6 s) isometric elbow flexor contractions (5, 10, 25 or 50% of maximal force). During each contraction, transcranial magnetic stimulation or transmastoid stimulation was delivered to elicit a motor-evoked potential (MEP) or cervicomedullary motor-evoked potential (CMEP), respectively. Force steadiness was lower in PRO compared with NEU and SUP (P ≤ 0.001), with no difference between NEU and SUP. Similarly, spinal excitability (CMEP/maximal M wave) was lower in PRO than NEU (25 and 50% maximal force; P ≤ 0.010) and SUP (all force levels; P ≤ 0.004), with no difference between NEU and SUP. Cortical excitability (MEP/CMEP) did not change with forearm position (P = 0.055); however, a priori post hoc testing for position showed excitability was 39.8 ± 38.3% lower for PRO than NEU at 25% maximal force (P = 0.006). The data suggest that contraction intensity influences the effect of forearm position on neural excitability and that reduced spinal and, to a lesser extent, cortical excitability could contribute to lower force steadiness in PRO compared with NEU and SUP.NEW & NOTEWORTHY To address conflicting reports about the effect of forearm position on spinal and cortical excitability of the elbow flexors, we examine the influence of contraction intensity. For the first time, excitability data are considered in a force steadiness context. Motoneuronal excitability is lowest in pronation and this disparity increases with contraction intensity. Cortical excitability exhibits a similar pattern from 5 to 25% of maximal force. Lower corticospinal excitability likely contributes to relatively poor force steadiness in pronation.

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.

Muscle length and joint angle influence spinal but not corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii across forearm postures

Forearm rotation (supination/pronation) alters corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii, but it is unclear whether corticospinal excitability is influenced by joint angle, muscle length, or both. Thus the purpose of this study was to separately examine elbow joint angle and muscle length on corticospinal excitability. Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii was measured using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation. Spinal excitability was measured using cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation. Elbow angles were manipulated with a fixed biceps brachii muscle length (and vice versa) across five unique postures: 1) forearm neutral, elbow flexion 90°; 2) forearm supinated, elbow flexion 90°; 3) forearm pronated, elbow flexion 90°; 4) forearm supinated, elbow flexion 78°; and 5) forearm pronated, elbow flexion 113°. A musculoskeletal model determined biceps brachii muscle length for postures 1-3, and elbow joint angles (postures 4-5) were selected to maintain biceps length across forearm orientations. MEPs and CMEPs were elicited at rest and during an isometric contraction of 10% of maximal biceps muscle activity. At rest, MEP amplitudes to the biceps were largest during supination, which was independent of elbow joint angle. CMEP amplitudes were not different when the elbow was fixed at 90° but were largest in pronation when muscle length was controlled. During an isometric contraction, there were no significant differences across forearm postures for either MEP or CMEP amplitudes. These results highlight that elbow joint angle and biceps brachii muscle length can each independently influence spinal excitability. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Changes in upper limb posture can influence the responsiveness of the central nervous system to artificial stimulations. We established a novel approach integrating neurophysiology techniques with biomechanical modeling. Through this approach, the effects of elbow joint angle and biceps brachii muscle length on corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed. We demonstrate that spinal excitability is uniquely influenced by joint angle and muscle length, and this highlights the importance of accounting for muscle length in neurophysiological studies.

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.

Neuromuscular fatigue during repeated sprint exercise: underlying physiology and methodological considerations

Neuromuscular fatigue occurs when an individual’s capacity to produce force or power is impaired. Repeated sprint exercise requires an individual to physically exert themselves at near-maximal to maximal capacity for multiple short-duration bouts, is extremely taxing on the neuromuscular system, and consequently leads to the rapid development of neuromuscular fatigue. During repeated sprint exercise the development of neuromuscular fatigue is underlined by a combination of central and peripheral fatigue. However, there are a number of methodological considerations that complicate the quantification of the development of neuromuscular fatigue. The main goal of this review is to synthesize the results from recent investigations on the development of neuromuscular fatigue during repeated sprint exercise. Hence, we summarize the overall development of neuromuscular fatigue, explain how recovery time may alter the development of neuromuscular fatigue, outline the contributions of peripheral and central fatigue to neuromuscular fatigue, and provide some methodological considerations for quantifying neuromuscular fatigue during repeated sprint exercise.

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.

Voluntary activation and twitch potentiation of the elbow flexors across supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm orientations

Elbow flexion force depends on forearm orientation with supinated and neutral being stronger than pronated. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of forearm orientation on voluntary activation (VA), postactivation potentiation (PAP), and twitch properties. Eleven males (23 ± 3 years) performed isometric elbow flexion maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) in supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm orientations with supramaximal stimulation to the biceps brachii muscle belly before, during, and after the MVC. MVC and VA were higher in supinated (213.6 ± 49.6 N; 93.0 ± 5.2%) and neutral (243.6 ± 48.0 N; 96.1 ± 3.2%) compared with pronated (113.6 ± 21.3 N; 70.9 ± 20.4%) (P < 0.05), while PAP did not differ across the three orientations (71.6 ± 42.2%) (P > 0.05). In the rested state, pronated peak tension (PT) was less compared with supinated (42%). In the potentiated state, pronated PT was less than supinated (50%) and neutral (53%) (P < 0.05). Reduced strength in the pronated orientation is partially attributed to reduced drive; however, reductions in peak tension indicate that there also is a mechanical disadvantage when the forearm is placed into a pronated orientation, and this does not alter PAP.

Corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii is shoulder position dependent

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of shoulder position on corticospinal excitability (CSE) of the biceps brachii during rest and a 10% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Participants ( n = 9) completed two experimental sessions with four conditions: 1) rest, 0° shoulder flexion; 2) 10% MVC, 0° shoulder flexion; 3) rest, 90° shoulder flexion; and 4) 10% MVC, 90° shoulder flexion. Transcranial magnetic, transmastoid electrical, and Erb’s point stimulation were used to induce motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), cervicomedullary MEPs (CMEPs), and maximal muscle compound potentials (Mmax), respectively, in the biceps brachii in each condition. At rest, MEP, CMEP, and Mmax amplitudes increased ( P < 0.01) by 509.7 ± 118.3%, 113.3 ± 28.3%, and 155.1 ± 47.9%, respectively, at 90° compared with 0°. At 10% MVC, MEP amplitudes did not differ ( P = 0.08), but CMEP and Mmax amplitudes increased ( P < 0.05) by 32.3 ± 10.5% and 127.9 ± 26.1%, respectively, at 90° compared with 0°. MEP/Mmax increased ( P < 0.01) by 224.0 ± 99.1% at rest and decreased ( P < 0.05) by 51.3 ± 6.7% at 10% MVC at 90° compared with 0°. CMEP/Mmax was not different ( P = 0.22) at rest but decreased ( P < 0.01) at 10% MVC by 33.6 ± 6.1% at 90° compared with 0°. EMG increased ( P < 0.001) by 8.3 ± 2.0% at rest and decreased ( P < 0.001) by 21.4 ± 4.4% at 10% MVC at 90° compared with 0°. In conclusion, CSE of the biceps brachii was dependent on shoulder position, and the pattern of change was altered within the state in which it was measured. The position-dependent changes in Mmax amplitude, EMG, and CSE itself all contribute to the overall change in CSE of the biceps brachii.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrate that when the shoulder is placed into two common positions for determining elbow flexor force and activation, corticospinal excitability (CSE) of the biceps brachii is both shoulder position and state dependent. At rest, when the shoulder is flexed from 0° to 90°, supraspinal factors predominantly alter CSE, whereas during a slight contraction, spinal factors predominantly alter CSE. Finally, the normalization techniques frequently used by researchers to investigate CSE may under- and overestimate CSE when shoulder position is changed.

Maximal Voluntary Activation of the Elbow Flexors Is under Predicted by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Compared to Motor Point Stimulation Prior to and Following Muscle Fatigue

Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and motor point stimulation have been used to determine voluntary activation (VA). However, very few studies have directly compared the two stimulation techniques for assessing VA of the elbow flexors. The purpose of this study was to compare TMS and motor point stimulation for assessing VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Participants performed a fatigue protocol that included twelve, 15 s isometric elbow flexor contractions. Participants completed a set of isometric elbow flexion contractions at 100, 75, 50, and 25% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) prior to and following fatigue contractions 3, 6, 9, and 12 and 5 and 10 min post-fatigue. Force and EMG of the bicep and triceps brachii were measured for each contraction. Force responses to TMS and motor point stimulation and EMG responses to TMS (motor evoked potentials, MEPs) and Erb's point stimulation (maximal M-waves, M_max) were also recorded. VA was estimated using the equation: VA% = (1−SITforce/PTforce) × 100. The resting twitch was measured directly for motor point stimulation and estimated for both motor point stimulation and TMS by extrapolation of the linear regression between the superimposed twitch force and voluntary force. MVC force, potentiated twitch force and VA significantly (p < 0.05) decreased throughout the elbow flexor fatigue protocol and partially recovered 10 min post fatigue. VA was significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated when using TMS compared to motor point stimulation in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Motor point stimulation compared to TMS superimposed twitch forces were significantly (p < 0.05) higher at 50% MVC but similar at 75 and 100% MVC. The linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force significantly (p < 0.05) decreased with fatigue. There was no change in triceps/biceps electromyography, biceps/triceps MEP amplitudes, or bicep MEP amplitudes throughout the fatigue protocol at 100% MVC. In conclusion, motor point stimulation as opposed to TMS led to a higher estimation of VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. The decreased linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force led to an underestimation of the estimated resting twitch force and thus, a reduced VA.

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.