Motor Responses of Lumbar Erector Spinae Induced by Electrical Vestibular Stimulation in Seated Participants

Vestibular control of deep and superficial lumbar muscles

The active control of the lumbar musculature provides a stable platform critical for postures and goal-directed movements. Voluntary and perturbation-evoked motor commands can recruit individual lumbar muscles in a task-specific manner according to their presumed biomechanics. Here, we investigated the vestibular control of the deep and superficial lumbar musculature. Ten healthy participants were exposed to noisy electrical vestibular stimulation while balancing upright with their head facing forward, left, or right to characterize the differential modulation in the vestibular-evoked lumbar extensor responses in generating multidirectional whole body motion. We quantified the activation of the lumbar muscles on the right side using indwelling [deep multifidus, superficial multifidus, caudal longissimus (L4), and cranial longissimus (L1)] and high-density surface recordings. We characterized the vestibular-evoked responses using coherence and peak-to-peak cross-covariance amplitude between the vestibular and electromyographic signals. Participants exhibited responses in all lumbar muscles. The vestibular control of the lumbar musculature exhibited muscle-specific modulations: responses were larger in the longissimus (combined cranio-caudal) compared with the multifidus (combined deep-superficial) when participants faced forward (P < 0.001) and right (P = 0.011) but not when they faced left. The high-density surface recordings partly supported this observation: the location of the responses was more lateral when facing right compared with left (P < 0.001). The vestibular control of muscle subregions within the longissimus or the multifidus was similar. Our results demonstrate muscle-specific vestibular control of the lumbar muscles in response to perturbations of vestibular origin. The lack of differential activation of lumbar muscle subregions suggests the vestibular control of these subregions is co-regulated for standing balance.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated the vestibular control of the deep and superficial lumbar extensor muscles using electrical vestibular stimuli. Vestibular stimuli elicited preferential activation of the longissimus muscle over the multifidus muscle. We did not observe clear regional activation of lumbar muscle subregions in response to the vestibular stimuli. Our findings show that the central nervous system can finely tune the vestibular control of individual lumbar muscles and suggest minimal regional variations in the activation of lumbar muscle subregions.

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.

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).

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.