Limits...
The modulatory effect of electrical stimulation on the excitability of the corticospinal tract varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed.

Saito K, Sugawara K, Miyaguchi S, Matsumoto T, Kirimoto H, Tamaki H, Onishi H - Front Hum Neurosci (2014)

Bottom Line: Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability.The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed.These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan ; Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during a shortening contraction, an isometric contraction, or no contraction of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. In some trials, electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve was performed at 110% of the sensory threshold or 110% of the motor threshold prior to TMS. Electrical stimulation involved either a train of 50 pulses at 10 Hz or a single pulse. Shortening contraction with the train of electrical stimuli significantly increased MEP amplitudes, and the increase was dependent on the type of stimulation. Isometric contraction with the train of electrical stimuli and electrical stimulation without voluntary contraction did not affect MEP amplitudes. A single pulse of electrical stimulation did not affect MEP amplitudes in any condition. Thus, electrical-stimulation-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability varied according to the type of muscle contraction performed and the type of stimulation. These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

The effect of voluntary contraction with electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability in single subject (A) Typical motor-evoked potential (MEP) waveforms recorded in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. (A), shortening contraction. (B), isometric contraction.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4199265&req=5

Figure 3: The effect of voluntary contraction with electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability in single subject (A) Typical motor-evoked potential (MEP) waveforms recorded in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. (A), shortening contraction. (B), isometric contraction.

Mentions: Figure 3A shows typical MEP waveforms in the FDI muscle from one participant recorded in a shortening FDI contraction performed with and without a single pulse of ulnar nerve stimulation or a train of ulnar nerve stimuli, and Figure 4 shows the pooled data (n = 14). A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the type of electrical stimulation on the MEP control ratio [F(4.52) = 5.002, p = 0.002 ]. Post hoc analysis revealed that the MEP control ratio during shortening contraction was significantly higher with a train of electrical stimulation above sensory threshold than with other types of electrical stimulation (p < 0.05). However, the analysis also revealed no significant difference between the MEP control ratio during shortening contraction with electrical stimulation above motor threshold and that without electrical stimulation (p = 0.658). These results indicated that a train of low-intensity electrical stimulation was highly effective in facilitating MEPs measured in the FDI during the shortening contraction rather than high-intensity electrical stimulation.


The modulatory effect of electrical stimulation on the excitability of the corticospinal tract varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed.

Saito K, Sugawara K, Miyaguchi S, Matsumoto T, Kirimoto H, Tamaki H, Onishi H - Front Hum Neurosci (2014)

The effect of voluntary contraction with electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability in single subject (A) Typical motor-evoked potential (MEP) waveforms recorded in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. (A), shortening contraction. (B), isometric contraction.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4199265&req=5

Figure 3: The effect of voluntary contraction with electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability in single subject (A) Typical motor-evoked potential (MEP) waveforms recorded in the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. (A), shortening contraction. (B), isometric contraction.
Mentions: Figure 3A shows typical MEP waveforms in the FDI muscle from one participant recorded in a shortening FDI contraction performed with and without a single pulse of ulnar nerve stimulation or a train of ulnar nerve stimuli, and Figure 4 shows the pooled data (n = 14). A one-way repeated-measures ANOVA revealed a significant effect of the type of electrical stimulation on the MEP control ratio [F(4.52) = 5.002, p = 0.002 ]. Post hoc analysis revealed that the MEP control ratio during shortening contraction was significantly higher with a train of electrical stimulation above sensory threshold than with other types of electrical stimulation (p < 0.05). However, the analysis also revealed no significant difference between the MEP control ratio during shortening contraction with electrical stimulation above motor threshold and that without electrical stimulation (p = 0.658). These results indicated that a train of low-intensity electrical stimulation was highly effective in facilitating MEPs measured in the FDI during the shortening contraction rather than high-intensity electrical stimulation.

Bottom Line: Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability.The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed.These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Physical Therapy, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan ; Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare Niigata, Japan.

ABSTRACT
Afferent input caused by electrical stimulation of a peripheral nerve increases corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions, indicating that proprioceptive sensory input arriving at the cortex plays a fundamental role in modulating corticospinal excitability. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effect of electrical stimulation on the corticospinal excitability varies according to the type of muscle contraction being performed. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) during a shortening contraction, an isometric contraction, or no contraction of the first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. In some trials, electrical stimulation of the ulnar nerve was performed at 110% of the sensory threshold or 110% of the motor threshold prior to TMS. Electrical stimulation involved either a train of 50 pulses at 10 Hz or a single pulse. Shortening contraction with the train of electrical stimuli significantly increased MEP amplitudes, and the increase was dependent on the type of stimulation. Isometric contraction with the train of electrical stimuli and electrical stimulation without voluntary contraction did not affect MEP amplitudes. A single pulse of electrical stimulation did not affect MEP amplitudes in any condition. Thus, electrical-stimulation-induced modulation of corticospinal excitability varied according to the type of muscle contraction performed and the type of stimulation. These results show that the type of contraction should be considered when using electrical stimulation for rehabilitation in patients with central nervous system lesions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus