Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of neutral and pronated handgrip positions on corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii during arm cycling. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES), respectively. Participants were seated upright in front on arm cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded from the biceps brachii at two different crank positions (6 and 12 o’clock positions relative to a clock face) while arm cycling with neutral and pronated handgrip positions. Responses were also elicited during tonic elbow flexion to compare/contrast the results to a non-rhythmic motor output. MEP and CMEP amplitudes were significantly larger at the 6 o’clock position while arm cycling with a neutral handgrip position compared to pronated (45.6 and 29.9%, respectively). There were no differences in MEP and CMEP amplitudes at the 12 o’clock position for either handgrip position. For the tonic contractions, MEPs were significantly larger with a neutral vs. pronated handgrip position (32.6% greater) while there were no difference in CMEPs. Corticospinal excitability was higher with a neutral handgrip position for both arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion. While spinal excitability was also higher with a neutral handgrip position during arm cycling, no difference was observed during tonic elbow flexion. These findings suggest that not only is corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii modulated at both the supraspinal and spinal level, but that it is influenced differently between rhythmic arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion.

Highlights

  • Limb orientation and joint posture influence the planning and execution of motor programs, and the processes behind this neural modulation have been attributed to both cortical and spinal mechanisms

  • At the 6 o’clock crank position, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) amplitudes were significantly larger while arm cycling with a neutral handgrip position compared with pronated (Neutral: 55.6 ± 20.2% of Mmax, Pronated: 38.2 ± 21.7% of Mmax, P < 0.05)

  • At the 6 o’clock crank position, cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) amplitudes were significantly larger while arm cycling with a neutral handgrip position compared with pronated (Neutral: 31.3 ± 11.9% of Mmax, Pronated: 24.1 ± 11.4% of Mmax, P < 0.05)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Limb orientation and joint posture influence the planning and execution of motor programs, and the processes behind this neural modulation have been attributed to both cortical and spinal mechanisms. The amplitudes of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to the biceps brachii and posterior deltoid are influenced by changes in upper-limb position (Mogk et al, 2014). The amplitudes of MEPs and cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were examined in order to assess corticospinal and spinal excitability, respectively, to the biceps brachii during various upper-limb postures (Nuzzo et al, 2016). MEPs and CMEPs were elicited while the upper-limb was placed in static, resting positions that varied between supinated, neutral, and pronated forearm positions. Both MEPs and CMEPs were modulated as an effect of forearm position, suggesting enhanced spinal excitability was the driving mechanism. The influence of forearm posture on corticospinal and spinal excitability during rhythmic motor outputs is unknown

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call