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

Corticospinal excitability and reflex modulation in a contralateral non-stretched muscle following unilateral stretching

PURPOSE

Muscle stretching effect on the range of motion (ROM) and force deficit in non-stretched muscle, and the underlying mechanisms, is an ongoing issue. This study aimed to investigate crossover stretching effects and mechanisms on the plantar flexor muscles.

METHODS

Fourteen recreationally active females (n = 5) and males (n = 9) performed six sets of 45-s static stretching (SS) (15-s recovery) to the point of discomfort of the dominant leg (DL) plantar flexors or control (345-s rest). Participants were tested for a single 5-s pre- and post-test maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC) with each plantar flexor muscle and were tested for DL and non-DL ROM. They were tested pre- and post-test (immediate, 10-s, 30-s) for the Hoffman (H)-reflex and motor-evoked potentials (MEP) from transcranial magnetic stimulation in the contralateral, non-stretched muscle.

RESULTS

Both the DL and non-DL-MVIC force had large magnitude, significant (↓10.87%, p = 0.027, pƞ2 = 0.4) and non-significant (↓9.53%, p = 0.15, pƞ2 = 0.19) decreases respectively with SS. The SS also significantly improved the DL (6.5%, p < 0.001) and non-DL (5.35%, p = 0.002) ROM. The non-DL MEP/MMax and HMax/MMax ratio did not change significantly.

CONCLUSION

Prolonged static stretching improved the stretched muscle's ROM. However, the stretched limb's force was negatively affected following the stretching protocol. The ROM improvement and large magnitude force impairment (statistically non-significant) were transferred to the contralateral muscles. The lack of significant changes in spinal and corticospinal excitability confirms that the afferent excitability of the spinal motoneurons and corticospinal excitability may not play a substantial role in non-local muscle's ROM or force output responses.

Corticospinal and spinal excitability during peripheral or central cooling in humans

Cold exposure can impair fine and gross motor control and threaten survival. Most motor task decrement is due to peripheral neuromuscular factors. Less is known about cooling on central neural factors. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were determined during cooling of the skin (T_sk) and core (T_co). Eight subjects (four female) were actively cooled in a liquid perfused suit for 90 min (2 °C inflow temperature), passively cooled for 7 min, and then rewarmed for 30 min (41 °C inflow temperature). Stimulation blocks included 10 transcranial magnetic stimulations [eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) which indicate corticospinal excitability], 8 trans-mastoid electrical stimulations [eliciting cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) which indicate spinal excitability] and 2 brachial plexus electrical stimulations [eliciting maximal compound motor action potentials (M_max)]. These stimulations were delivered every 30 min. Cooling for 90 min reduced T_sk to 18.2 °C while T_co did not change. At the end of rewarming T_sk returned to baseline while T_co decreased by 0.8 °C (afterdrop) (P < 0.001). Metabolic heat production was higher than baseline at the end of passive cooling (P = 0.01), and 7 min into rewarming (P = 0.04). MEP/M_max remained unchanged throughout. CMEP/M_max increased by 38% at end cooling (although increased variability at this time rendered the increase insignificant, P = 0.23) and 58% at end warming when T_co was 0.8 °C below baseline (P = 0.02). Cooling increased spinal excitability but not corticospinal excitability. Cooling may decrease cortical and/or supraspinal excitability which is compensated for by increased spinal excitability. This compensation is key to providing a motor task and survival advantage.

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.

Probing the Effect of Block Duration on Corticospinal Excitability during Motor Imagery Performance

Considerable evidence exists related to the behavioral outcomes of motor imagery-based training (MI). Comparatively, there is a relative gap in the literature on how corticospinal excitability, a precursor for experience-dependent plasticity, changes over the course of an MI session, and more specifically if there is an effect of varying the duration of the blocks in which MI is performed. As such, we probed corticospinal excitability during MI, whereby the duration of MI blocks within the session were manipulated yet total exposure to MI was kept constant. Participants performed a total of 24 min of MI of common motor tasks in blocks of 2, 4 or 6 min. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to assess corticospinal excitability throughout MI performance. All groups demonstrated increased corticospinal excitability over the session. Owing to a decrease in corticospinal excitability when engaging in 6 min blocks and the variability noted when engaging in 2 min blocks, findings suggest that MI performed in 4 min blocks may be preferable for the generation and maintenance of corticospinal excitability, at least relative to 2 and 6 min blocks. Overall, our findings provide physiological evidence that informs the structure of MI training sessions to optimize their effectiveness.

Neuromuscular Mechanisms Underlying Changes in Force Production during an Attentional Focus Task

We examined the effects of attentional focus cues on maximal voluntary force output of the elbow flexors and the underlying physiological mechanisms. Eleven males participated in two randomized experimental sessions. In each session, four randomized blocks of three maximal voluntary contractions (MVC) were performed. The blocks consisted of two externally and two internally attentional focus cued blocks. In one of the sessions, corticospinal excitability (CSE) was measured. During the stimulation session transcranial magnetic, transmastoid and Erb’s point stimulations were used to induce motor evoked potentials (MEPs), cervicomedullary MEP (CMEPs) and maximal muscle action potential (Mmax), respectively in the biceps brachii. Across both sessions forces were lower (p = 0.024) under the internal (282.4 ± 60.3 N) compared to the external condition (310.7 ± 11.3 N). Muscle co-activation was greater (p = 0.016) under the internal (26.3 ± 11.5%) compared with the external condition (21.5 ± 9.4%). There was no change in CSE. Across both sessions, force measurements were lower (p = 0.033) during the stimulation (279.0 ± 47.1 N) compared with the no-stimulation session (314.1 ± 57.5 N). In conclusion, external focus increased force, likely due to reduced co-activation. Stimulating the corticospinal pathway may confound attentional focus. The stimulations may distract participants from the cues and/or disrupt areas of the cortex responsible for attention and focus.