Forward Cycling Research Articles

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

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 and transmastoid electrical stimulation 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 2 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 cycling. However, during the extension phase, MEP and CMEP amplitudes were higher during BWD cycling. For the triceps brachii, MEP amplitudes were higher during FWD cycling regardless of phase. However, CMEP amplitudes were phase-dependent. During the flexion phase, CMEPs of the triceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling compared with BWD, but during the extension phase CMEPs were higher during BWD cycling compared with FWD. The data suggest 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. Novelty This is the first study to assess corticospinal excitability during FWD and BWD locomotor output. Corticospinal excitability during arm cycling depends on the direction, phase, and muscle being assessed.

Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii is Modulated Differently between Forward and Backward Arm Cycling

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 InformationNSERC Discovery Grant awarded to K.E. PowerThis abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.