Intracortical inhibition and facilitation with unilateral dominant, unilateral nondominant and bilateral movement tasks in left- and right-handed adults

Waller, Sandy McCombe; Forrester, Larry W.; Villagra, Federico; Whitall, Jill

doi:10.1016/j.jns.2007.12.033

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…, 2000; Soto et al. , 2006; McCombe Waller et al. , 2008), probably because its mechanism is more complex than SICI as it is mediated by more than one neurotransmitter, including glutamate, dopamine and GABA (Ziemann et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral motor cortical responses to TMS during lengthening and shortening of the contralateral wrist flexors

Howatson

Taylor

Rider

et al. 2011

European Journal of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unilateral lengthening contractions provide a greater stimulus for neuromuscular adaptation than shortening contractions in the active and non-active contralateral homologous muscle, although little is known of the potential mechanism. Here we examined the possibility that corticospinal and spinal excitability vary in a contraction-specific manner in the relaxed right flexor carpi radialis (FCR) when humans perform unilateral lengthening and shortening contractions of the left wrist flexors at the same absolute force. Corticospinal excitability in the relaxed right FCR increased more during lengthening than shortening at 80 and 100% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) diminished during shortening contractions and it became nearly abolished during lengthening. Intracortical facilitation (ICF) lessened during shortening but increased during lengthening. Interhemispheric inhibition (IHI) to the "non-active" motor cortex diminished during shortening and became nearly abolished during lengthening at 90% MVC. The amplitude of the H-reflex in the relaxed right FCR decreased during and remained depressed for 20 s after lengthening and shortening of the left wrist flexors. We discuss the possibility that instead of the increased afferent input, differences in the descending motor command and activation of brain areas that link function of the motor cortices during muscle lengthening vs. shortening may cause the contraction-specific modulation of ipsilateral motor cortical output. In conclusion, ipsilateral M1 responses to TMS are contraction-specific; unilateral lengthening and shortening contractions reduced contralateral spinal excitability but uniquely modulated ipsilateral corticospinal excitability and the networks involved in intracortical and interhemispheric connections, which may have clinical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ipsilateral motor cortical responses to TMS during lengthening and shortening of the contralateral wrist flexors

Howatson

Taylor

Rider

et al. 2011

European Journal of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, neither of these putative mechanisms provide a direct account of the influence of factors such as vision on levels of cross facilitation (Carson et al, 2005; Garry et al, 2005; Carson and Ruddy, 2012) in circumstances in which the descending output from the active M1 does not vary across conditions (see also Avanzino et al, 2007). Furthermore, measures of intracortical inhibition (SICI) and facilitation (ICF) do not change systematically within (McCombe Waller et al, 2008) or across training sessions, and thus these measures do not correlate with the induced levels of transfer (Hortobagyi et al, 2011). This lack of association suggests that the processes that mediate the expression of SICI and ICF (when assessed at rest) are incidental to those that underlie cross education.…”

Section: Cross Activationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural pathways mediating cross education of motor function

Ruddy¹,

Carson²

2013

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

163

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross education is the process whereby training of one limb gives rise to enhancements in the performance of the opposite, untrained limb. Despite interest in this phenomenon having been sustained for more than a century, a comprehensive explanation of the mediating neural mechanisms remains elusive. With new evidence emerging that cross education may have therapeutic utility, the need to provide a principled evidential basis upon which to design interventions becomes ever more pressing. Generally, mechanistic accounts of cross education align with one of two explanatory frameworks. Models of the “cross activation” variety encapsulate the observation that unilateral execution of a movement task gives rise to bilateral increases in corticospinal excitability. The related conjecture is that such distributed activity, when present during unilateral practice, leads to simultaneous adaptations in neural circuits that project to the muscles of the untrained limb, thus facilitating subsequent performance of the task. Alternatively, “bilateral access” models entail that motor engrams formed during unilateral practice, may subsequently be utilized bilaterally—that is, by the neural circuitry that constitutes the control centers for movements of both limbs. At present there is a paucity of direct evidence that allows the corresponding neural processes to be delineated, or their relative contributions in different task contexts to be ascertained. In the current review we seek to synthesize and assimilate the fragmentary information that is available, including consideration of knowledge that has emerged as a result of technological advances in structural and functional brain imaging. An emphasis upon task dependency is maintained throughout, the conviction being that the neural mechanisms that mediate cross education may only be understood in this context.

show abstract

“…21 The stimulation, being linked to the patient’s own motor intention and afferent feedback, may facilitate neural reorganization that underlies motor recovery. 14,34 Furthermore, linking movement of the paretic side to the less affected side may increase the corticospinal excitability of the stimulated muscles 35 by interhemispheric disinhibition, 36 intracortical facilitation, 37 or the same mechanisms that underlie the improvements seen after bilateral arm training. 11,38 Because of these potential advantages of the electrical stimulation paradigm, the dose (number of repetitions per session) was increased as the treatment progressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation for Recovery of Elbow Extension and Hand Opening After Stroke

Knutson

Harley

Hisel

et al. 2014

American Journal of Physical Medicine &Amp; Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aims of this study were to determine whether patients with moderate-to-severe upper limb hemiplegia could use contralaterally controlled functional electrical stimulation at the arm and the hand (Arm+Hand CCFES) at home and to evaluate the feasibility of the Arm+Hand CCFES to reduce arm and hand motor impairment. Design With the Arm+Hand CCFES, the paretic elbow and hand extensors were stimulated with intensities proportional to the degree of elbow extension and hand opening, respectively, of the contralateral unimpaired side. For 1 2 wks, four participants with chronic (≥6 mos) upper limb hemiplegia received ∼7 hrs per week of self-administered home-based stimulation-mediated elbow extension and hand opening exercise plus ∼2.5 hrs per week of therapist-supervised laboratory-based stimulation-assisted functional task practice. Assessments of upper limb impairment were made at pretreatment, posttreatment, and 1 mo after treatment. Results All four participants were able to use the Arm+Hand CCFES system at home either independently or with very minimal assistance from a caregiver. All four participants had increases in the Fugl-Meyer score (1–9 points) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (0.2–0.8 points) and varying degrees of improvement in maximum hand opening, maximum elbow extension, and simultaneous elbow extension and hand opening. Conclusions The Arm+Hand CCFES can be successfully administered in stroke patients with moderate-to-severe impairment and can reduce various aspects of upper limb impairment. A larger efficacy study is warranted.

show abstract

Intracortical inhibition and facilitation with unilateral dominant, unilateral nondominant and bilateral movement tasks in left- and right-handed adults

Cited by 40 publications

References 49 publications

Ipsilateral motor cortical responses to TMS during lengthening and shortening of the contralateral wrist flexors

Ipsilateral motor cortical responses to TMS during lengthening and shortening of the contralateral wrist flexors

Neural pathways mediating cross education of motor function

Contralaterally Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation for Recovery of Elbow Extension and Hand Opening After Stroke

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About