Purpose There is growing evidence that vertebral column function and dysfunction play a vital role in neuromuscular control. This invited review summarises the evidence about how vertebral column dysfunction, known as a central segmental motor control (CSMC) problem, alters neuromuscular function and how spinal adjustments (high-velocity, low-amplitude or HVLA thrusts directed at a CSMC problem) and spinal manipulation (HVLA thrusts directed at segments of the vertebral column that may not have clinical indicators of a CSMC problem) alters neuromuscular function. Methods The current review elucidates the peripheral mechanisms by which CSMC problems, the spinal adjustment or spinal manipulation alter the afferent input from the paravertebral tissues. It summarises the contemporary model that provides a biologically plausible explanation for CSMC problems, the manipulable spinal lesion. This review also summarises the contemporary, biologically plausible understanding about how spinal adjustments enable more efficient production of muscular force. The evidence showing how spinal dysfunction, spinal manipulation and spinal adjustments alter central multimodal integration and motor control centres will be covered in a second invited review. Results Many studies have shown spinal adjustments increase voluntary force and prevent fatigue, which mainly occurs due to altered supraspinal excitability and multimodal integration. The literature suggests physical injury, pain, inflammation, and acute or chronic physiological or psychological stress can alter the vertebral column’s central neural motor control, leading to a CSMC problem. The many gaps in the literature have been identified, along with suggestions for future studies. Conclusion Spinal adjustments of CSMC problems impact motor control in a variety of ways. These include increasing muscle force and preventing fatigue. These changes in neuromuscular function most likely occur due to changes in supraspinal excitability. The current contemporary model of the CSMC problem, and our understanding of the mechanisms of spinal adjustments, provide a biologically plausible explanation for how the vertebral column’s central neural motor control can dysfunction, can lead to a self-perpetuating central segmental motor control problem, and how HVLA spinal adjustments can improve neuromuscular function.

Background: Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation (ctDCS) appears to modulate motor performance in both adaptation and motor skill tasks; however, whether the gains are long-lasting is unclear.Objectives: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of ctDCS with respect to different time scales of motor learning.Methods: Ten electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORT Discus, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane via OVID, Evidence-Based Reviews (EBM) via OVID, AMED: Allied and Complementary Medicine, PsycINFO, and PEDro) were systematically searched. Studies evaluating the effect of ctDCS compared to sham ctDCS on motor learning in healthy individuals were selected and reviewed. Two authors independently reviewed the quality of the included studies using the revised Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool. The results were extracted with respect to the time scale in which changes in motor performance were evaluated.Results: Seventeen randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria of which 65% of the studies had a “high” risk-of-bias, and 35% had “some concerns.” These studies included data from 629 healthy participants. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of anodal ctDCS during and immediately after the stimulation, four found enhanced, three found impaired, and ten found no effect on gains in motor performance. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of anodal ctDCS after a break of 24 h or more, seven found enhanced, two found impaired, and one found no effect on gains in motor performance. Of the studies that evaluated the effect of cathodal ctDCS across a range of time scales, five found impaired, one found enhanced, and five found no effect on gains in motor performance.Conclusions: In healthy individuals, anodal ctDCS appears to improve short to longer-term motor skill learning, whereas it appears to have no effect on gains in motor performance during and immediate after the stimulation. ctDCS may have potential to improve motor performance beyond the training period. The challenge of the motor task and its characteristics, and the stimulation parameters are likely to influence the effect of ctDCS on motor learning.

There is growing evidence showing that spinal manipulation increases muscle strength in healthy individuals as well as in people with some musculoskeletal and neurological disorders. However, the underlying mechanism by which spinal manipulation changes muscle strength is less clear. This study aimed to assess the effects of a single spinal manipulation session on the electrophysiological and metabolic properties of the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle. Maximum voluntary contractions (MVC) of the ankle dorsiflexors, high-density electromyography (HDsEMG), intramuscular EMG, and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) were recorded from the TA muscle in 25 participants with low level recurring spinal dysfunction using a randomized controlled crossover design. The following outcomes: motor unit discharge rate (MUDR), strength (force at MVC), muscle conduction velocity (CV), relative changes in oxy- and deoxyhemoglobin were assessed pre and post a spinal manipulation intervention and passive movement control. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess within and between-group differences. Following the spinal manipulation intervention, there was a significant increase in MVC (p = 0.02; avg 18.87 ± 28.35%) and a significant increase in CV in both the isometric steady-state (10% of MVC) contractions (p < 0.01; avg 22.11 ± 11.69%) and during the isometric ramp (10% of MVC) contractions (p < 0.01; avg 4.52 ± 4.58%) compared to the control intervention. There were no other significant findings. The observed TA strength and CV increase, without changes in MUDR, suggests that the strength changes observed following spinal manipulation are, in part, due to increased recruitment of larger, higher threshold motor units. Further research needs to investigate the longer term and potential functional effects of spinal manipulation in various patients who may benefit from improved muscle function and greater motor unit recruitment.