Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex was used to produce compound motor evoked potentials (cMEPs) in the first dorsal interosseus (FDI) muscle. The size of cMEPs was measured as an index of corticospinal excitability before and after initiation of a simple reaction task (SRT). The SRT, consisting of an abduction of the right index finger against a vertical support in response to a 1 kHz cueing tone, was performed in 6 healthy male subjects. cMEPs were facilitated when timed to occur just before the fastest simple reaction time (fSRT). When the cMEP was placed 15.5 ± 1.5 ms before the fSRT, its amplitude increased to 176 ± 36% of the control response seen in the relaxed state (no SRTs). Facilitation of the cMEP increased to 382 ± 43% of the control when it was placed 11.9 ± 1.5 ms after the fSRT. The facilitation of cMEP responses prior to the SRT is discussed with particular reference to the premovement potential that may be recorded over the cortex prior to a voluntary movement.
Nick J. Davey, Steve R. Rawlinson, David W. Maskill, and Peter H. Ellaway
Sofia I. Lampropoulou and Alexander V. Nowicky
The purported ergogenic actions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) applied to motor cortex (M1) on force production and perception of effort were investigated using a 10-item numerical rating scale (0–10 NRS) in nonfatiguing bouts of a force-matching task utilizing isometric elbow flexion. Using a crossover design, 12 healthy volunteers received sham, anodal, and cathodal tDCS randomly for 10 min (1.5 mA, 62 μA/cm2) to the left M1 in a double-blind manner. Corticospinal excitability changes were also monitored using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with surface electromyography (sEMG) to monitor both motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and force-EMG from right m. biceps brachii and m. brachioradialis brachii. No significant differences between the verum and sham stimulation were obtained for elbow flexion maximum voluntary force, perception of effort, or sEMG. There were also no significant differences in MEP changes for the types of tDCS, which is consistent with reports that tDCS excitability effects are diminished during ongoing cognitive and motor activities.
Adam S. Lepley, Allison M. Strouse, Hayley M. Ericksen, Kate R. Pfile, Phillip A. Gribble, and Brian G. Pietrosimone
Components of gluteal neuromuscular function, such as strength and corticospinal excitability, could potentially influence alterations in lower extremity biomechanics during jump landing.
To determine the relationship between gluteal muscle strength, gluteal corticospinal excitability, and jump-landing biomechanics in healthy women.
Descriptive laboratory study.
37 healthy women (21.08 ± 2.15 y, 164.8 ± 5.9 cm, 65.4 ± 12.0 kg).
Bilateral gluteal strength was assessed through maximal voluntary isometric contractions (MVIC) using an isokinetic dynamometer. Strength was tested in the open chain in prone and side-lying positions for the gluteus maximus and gluteus medius muscles, respectively. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to elicit measures of corticospinal excitability. Participants then performed 3 trials of jump landing from a 30-cm box to a distance of 50% of their height, with an immediate rebound to a maximal vertical jump. Each jump-landing trial was video recorded (2-D) and later scored for errors.
Main Outcome Measures:
MVICs normalized to body mass were used to assess strength in the gluteal muscles of the dominant and nondominant limbs. Corticospinal excitability was assessed by means of active motor threshold (AMT) and motor-evoked potentials (MEP) elicited at 120% of AMT. The Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) was used to evaluate jump-landing biomechanics.
A moderate, positive correlation was found between dominant gluteus maximus MEP and LESS scores (r = .562, P = .029). No other significant correlations were observed for MVIC, AMT, or MEP for the gluteus maximus and gluteus medius, regardless of limb.
The findings suggest a moderate relationship between dominant gluteus maximus corticospinal excitability and a clinical measure of jump-landing biomechanics. Further research is required to substantiate the findings and expand our understanding of the central nervous system’s role in athletic movement.
Sukhvinder S. Obhi, Patrick Haggard, John Taylor, and Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Bimanual coordination tasks form an essential part of our behaviour. One brain region thought to be involved in bimanual coordination is the supplementary motor area (SMA). We used repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) at 1 Hz for 5 min to create a temporary virtual lesion of the rostral portion of the human SMA immediately prior to performance of a goal-directed bimanual coordination task. In two control conditions, participants underwent sham stimulation or stimulation over the primary motor cortex (MI). The experimental task was to open a drawer with the left hand, catch a ball with the right hand, and reinsert the ball into the drawer through an aperture just big enough for the ball to pass through, again with the right hand. Hence, the actions of one hand depend upon the actions of the other. We calculated time intervals between the successive component actions of one hand (unimanual intervals) and actions of both hands (bimanual intervals) and analyzed these intervals separately. Interestingly, none of the unimanual intervals were affected by the rTMS, but the variability of a critical bimanual interval—the time between the left hand opening the drawer and the right hand starting to move to catch the ball—was increased by rTMS over the rostral parts of the SMA. No such effect was seen following rTMS over MI or after sham rTMS. Our results suggest that the rostral parts of the SMA play an important role in aspects of functional bimanual tasks, which involve tight temporal coordination between different motor actions of the two hands.
Matthew Harkey, Michelle McLeod, Ashley Van Scoit, Masafumi Terada, Michael Tevald, Phillip Gribble, and Brian Pietrosimone
Altered neuromuscular function and decreased dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) have been observed in patients with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Joint mobilizations are indicated for restoring DFROM and dynamic postural control, yet it remains unknown if a mobilization can alter neuromuscular excitability in muscles surrounding the ankle.
To determine the immediate effects of a Maitland grade III anterior-to-posterior joint mobilization on spinal-reflex and corticospinal excitability in the fibularis longus (FL) and soleus (SOL), DFROM, and dynamic postural control.
Single-blinded randomized control trial.
30 patients with CAI randomized into a mobilization (n = 15) or control (n = 15) group.
Maitland grade III anterior-to-posterior joint mobilization.
Main Outcome Measures:
Spinal-reflex excitability was measured with the Hoffmann reflex, while corticospinal excitability was evaluated with transcranial magnetic stimulation. DFROM was measured seated with the knee extended, and dynamic postural control was quantified with the Star Excursion Balance Test. Separate 2 × 2 repeated-measures ANOVAs were performed for each outcome measure. Dependent t tests were used to evaluate individual differences within groups in the presence of significance.
Spinal-reflex and corticospinal excitability of the SOL and FL were not altered in the mobilization or control group (P > .05). DFROM increased immediately after the mobilization (P = .05) but not in the control group, while dynamic postural control was unchanged in both groups (P > .05).
A single joint-mobilization treatment was efficacious at restoring DFROM in participants with CAI; however, excitability of spinal reflex and corticospinal pathways at the ankle and dynamic postural control were unaffected.
Carello * Kerry L. Marsh * 1 2009 13 1 69 83 10.1123/mcj.13.1.69 Correlation of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex in Overt Reading and Musical Tasks Y.L. Lo * H.H. Zhang * C.C. Wang * Z.Y. Chin * S. Fook-Chong * C. Gabriel * C.T. Guan * 1
Motor System in Humans Using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Robert Chen * Kaviraja Udupa * 10 2009 13 4 442 453 10.1123/mcj.13.4.442 Modulation of Arm Stiffness in Relation to Instability at the Beginning or the End of Goal-Directed Movements Theodore E. Milner * Emily J. Lai * Antony J
10 10 3 3 Guest Editorial Educational Isolation: Where Are Our Peers? Eric L. Sauers PhD, ATC, CSCS 5 2005 10 10 3 3 1 1 1 1 10.1123/att.10.3.1 Research Digest Applications of the H Reflex and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Thomas W. Kaminski PhD, ATC/R Christopher A. Knight PhD 5 2005 10
). BM indicates body mass; EMG, electromyography; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TMS, transcranial magnetic stimulation. Wile E. Coyote image licensed via carlos cardetas/Alamy Stock Photo. In the business, elite-sport, or academic setting, there is never only one way to complete a task, but there is
-0024 Technical Reports (Online Only) Optimal Joint Positions for Manual Isometric Muscle Testing Stefan C. Garcia * Jeffrey J. Dueweke * Christopher L. Mendias * 1 11 2016 25 4 10.1123/jsr.2015-0118 Agreement Between Investigators Using Paired-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Assess Quadriceps