Corticospinal excitability, assessed through stimulus response curves, is phase-, task-, and muscle-dependent during arm cycling

Forman, Davis A.; Monks, Michael; Power, Kevin E.

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2018.11.003

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, unlike the biceps brachii, there was no significant difference in MEP amplitudes between FWD and BWD cycling when flexion and extension phases were compared. The lack of phase-dependent changes in CSE to the triceps brachii was not unexpected given our prior reports, albeit they only compared FWD cycling (Spence et al 2016;Forman et al 2018;Lockyer et al 2018). In contrast, the modulation of spinal excitability did depend on the phase of the movement cycle such that during the flexion phase, spinal excitability was higher during FWD (6 o'clock) cycling compared to BWD cycling (12 o'clock) and during the extension phase, spinal excitability was higher during BWD (6 o'clock) cycling compared to FWD (12 o'clock) cycling.…”

Section: Direction-dependent Modulation Of Corticospinal and Spinal Ementioning

confidence: 53%

“…CMEPs) during arm cycling. We have previously shown that CSE is different between these two types of motor outputs (Forman et al 2014;Forman et al 2016a;Forman et al 2016b;Forman et al 2018;Power et al 2018), and therefore may have different underlying mechanism(s).…”

Section: Direction-dependent Modulation Of Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…It is important to note, however, that these studies are not directly comparable for numerous reasons, including muscle-specific responses. For example, we have shown that unlike the biceps brachii, spinal excitability but not CSE to the triceps brachii is phasedependent during arm cycling (Spence et al 2016;Forman et al 2018). Indeed, CSE and spinal excitability is phase-, muscle, intensity-, and task-dependent [for review see; (Power et al 2018)].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Nippard¹,

Lockyer²,

Button³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (TMS) and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) 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 two 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 than BWD cycling. However, during the extension phase, MEP and CMEP amplitudes were higher during BWD than FWD cycling. For the triceps brachii, MEP amplitudes were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD regardless of phase. However, CMEP amplitudes were phase-dependent. During the flexion phase, CMEPs of the triceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD, but during the extension phase CMEPs were higher during BWD cycling compared to FWD. The data suggests 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.

show abstract

Section: Direction-dependent Modulation Of Corticospinal and Spinal Ementioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Direction-dependent Modulation Of Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Nippard¹,

Lockyer²,

Button³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Smith et al (2008) was some of the first work to show that muscle activity of upper-limb muscles was continuously influenced throughout the crank cycle (see Figures 2A and 2B in Smith et al (2008)). Recently, we demonstrated that there are unique phase differences between the biceps and triceps brachii during arm cycling (Forman et al 2019;Forman et al 2015). While the biceps brachii exhibits cyclical muscle activity, with large bursts in the EMG signal during the flexion phase and almost no activity in the extension phase, the triceps brachii demonstrates bursts of muscle activity in both phases (see Figure 1 of Forman et al 2015 andFigure 1B of Lockyer et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Peer Review #1 of "Changes in muscle activity during the flexion and extension phases of arm cycling as an effect of power output are muscle-specific (v0.2)"

Pearcey¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 25W 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.

show abstract

“…It is important to note, however, that these studies are not directly 95 comparable for numerous reasons, including muscle-specific responses. For example, we have 96 shown that unlike the biceps brachii, spinal excitability but not CSE to the triceps brachii is phase-97 dependent during arm cycling (Spence et al 2016;Forman et al 2018). Indeed, CSE and spinal 98 excitability is phase-, muscle, intensity-, and task-dependent [for review see; ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Nippard

Lockyer

Button

et al. 2020

Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate supraspinal and spinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii when comparing forward (FWD) and backward (BWD) arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed non‐invasively using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to elicit motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) to elicit cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs), respectively. MEPs and CMEPs were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii during FWD and BWD arm cycling at two positions, the 6 and 12 o'clock position. The 6 o'clock position corresponded to mid elbow flexion and extension during FWD and BWD cycling, respectively, while the 12 o'clock position corresponded to mid elbow extension and flexion during FWD and BWD cycling, respectively. Participants completed four arm cycling trials, two FWD and two BWD, at 60 rpm and 25 W. During the flexion phase MEP (p = .001) and CMEP (p = .001) amplitudes of the biceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling. However, during the extension phase MEP (p = .006) and CMEP (p = .003) amplitudes were higher during BWD cycling. For the triceps brachii MEP amplitudes were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD (p = .027) regardless of the functional phase (flexion vs. extension) of the movement cycle. However, spinal excitability to the triceps brachii was dependent on the functional phase of the movement cycle. During the flexion phase CMEPs of the triceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD (p = .032), but during the extension phase CMEPs were higher during BWD cycling compared to FWD (p = .001). This data suggests that the modulation of CSE and spinal excitability to the biceps brachii is dependent on the functional phase of the movement cycle and on the cycling direction. Also, spinal excitability but not CSE to the triceps brachii is dependent on the functional phase of the movement cycle when comparing FWD and BWD cycling. Support or Funding Information NSERC Discovery Grant awarded to K.E. Power This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

show abstract

Corticospinal excitability, assessed through stimulus response curves, is phase-, task-, and muscle-dependent during arm cycling

Cited by 20 publications

References 39 publications

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Peer Review #1 of "Changes in muscle activity during the flexion and extension phases of arm cycling as an effect of power output are muscle-specific (v0.2)"

Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii during forward and backward arm cycling is direction- and phase-dependent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About