scholarly journals Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis A. Forman ◽  
Mark Richards ◽  
Garrick N. Forman ◽  
Michael W. R. Holmes ◽  
Kevin E. Power
Keyword(s):  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Spinal Excitability

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-80
Author(s):  
Anna. P. Nippard ◽  
Evan. J. Lockyer ◽  
Duane. C. Button ◽  
Kevin. E. Power
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Extension Phase ◽  
Triceps Brachii ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Spinal Excitability ◽  
Flexion And Extension

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.

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

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Nippard ◽  
Evan Lockyer ◽  
Duane Button ◽  
Kevin Power
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Extension Phase ◽  
Triceps Brachii ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Spinal Excitability ◽  
Flexion And Extension

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 (TMS) and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) 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 two 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 than BWD cycling. However, during the extension phase, MEP and CMEP amplitudes were higher during BWD than FWD cycling. For the triceps brachii, MEP amplitudes were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD regardless of phase. However, CMEP amplitudes were phase-dependent. During the flexion phase, CMEPs of the triceps brachii were higher during FWD cycling compared to BWD, but during the extension phase CMEPs were higher during BWD cycling compared to FWD. The data suggests 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.

scholarly journals Cadence-dependent changes in corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii during arm cycling

2015 ◽  
Vol 114 (4) ◽  
pp. 2285-2294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis A. Forman ◽  
Devin T. G. Philpott ◽  
Duane C. Button ◽  
Kevin E. Power
Keyword(s):  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Elbow Extension ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Spinal Excitability ◽  
Stimulation Of

This is the first study to report the influence of different cadences on the modulation of supraspinal and spinal excitability during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced motor evoked potentials and transmastoid electrical stimulation-induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps brachii at two separate positions corresponding to elbow flexion and extension (6 and 12 o'clock relative to a clock face, respectively) while arm cycling at 30, 60 and 90 rpm. Motor evoked potential amplitudes increased significantly as cadence increased during both elbow flexion ( P < 0.001) and extension ( P = 0.027). CMEP amplitudes also increased with cadence during elbow flexion ( P < 0.01); however, the opposite occurred during elbow extension (i.e., decreased CMEP amplitude; P = 0.01). The data indicate an overall increase in the excitability of corticospinal neurons which ultimately project to biceps brachii throughout arm cycling as cadence increased. Conversely, changes in spinal excitability as cadence increased were phase dependent (i.e., increased during elbow flexion and decreased during elbow extension). Phase- and cadence-dependent changes in spinal excitability are suggested to be mediated via changes in the balance of excitatory and inhibitory synaptic input to the motor pool, as opposed to changes in the intrinsic properties of spinal motoneurons.

scholarly journals Muscle length and joint angle influence spinal but not corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii across forearm postures

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 413-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis A. Forman ◽  
Daniel Abdel-Malek ◽  
Christopher M. F. Bunce ◽  
Michael W. R. Holmes
Keyword(s):  
Isometric Contraction ◽  
Elbow Joint ◽  
Joint Angle ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Muscle Length ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Biceps Brachii Muscle ◽  
Spinal Excitability

Forearm rotation (supination/pronation) alters corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii, but it is unclear whether corticospinal excitability is influenced by joint angle, muscle length, or both. Thus the purpose of this study was to separately examine elbow joint angle and muscle length on corticospinal excitability. Corticospinal excitability to the biceps and triceps brachii was measured using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation. Spinal excitability was measured using cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation. Elbow angles were manipulated with a fixed biceps brachii muscle length (and vice versa) across five unique postures: 1) forearm neutral, elbow flexion 90°; 2) forearm supinated, elbow flexion 90°; 3) forearm pronated, elbow flexion 90°; 4) forearm supinated, elbow flexion 78°; and 5) forearm pronated, elbow flexion 113°. A musculoskeletal model determined biceps brachii muscle length for postures 1–3, and elbow joint angles ( postures 4–5) were selected to maintain biceps length across forearm orientations. MEPs and CMEPs were elicited at rest and during an isometric contraction of 10% of maximal biceps muscle activity. At rest, MEP amplitudes to the biceps were largest during supination, which was independent of elbow joint angle. CMEP amplitudes were not different when the elbow was fixed at 90° but were largest in pronation when muscle length was controlled. During an isometric contraction, there were no significant differences across forearm postures for either MEP or CMEP amplitudes. These results highlight that elbow joint angle and biceps brachii muscle length can each independently influence spinal excitability. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Changes in upper limb posture can influence the responsiveness of the central nervous system to artificial stimulations. We established a novel approach integrating neurophysiology techniques with biomechanical modeling. Through this approach, the effects of elbow joint angle and biceps brachii muscle length on corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed. We demonstrate that spinal excitability is uniquely influenced by joint angle and muscle length, and this highlights the importance of accounting for muscle length in neurophysiological studies.

scholarly journals Corticospinal-Evoked Responses from the Biceps Brachii during Arm Cycling across Multiple Power Outputs

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan J. Lockyer ◽  
Katarina Hosel ◽  
Anna P. Nippard ◽  
Duane C. Button ◽  
Kevin E. Power
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
M Wave ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Strong Stimulation ◽  
Multiple Power ◽  
Power Outputs ◽  
Spinal Excitability

Background: We examined corticospinal and spinal excitability across multiple power outputs during arm cycling using a weak and strong stimulus intensity. Methods: We elicited motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) in the biceps brachii using magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex and electrical stimulation of corticospinal axons during arm cycling at six different power outputs (i.e., 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 W) and two stimulation intensities (i.e., weak vs. strong). Results: In general, biceps brachii MEP and CMEP amplitudes (normalized to maximal M-wave (Mmax)) followed a similar pattern of modulation with increases in cycling intensity at both stimulation strengths. Specifically, MEP and CMEP amplitudes increased up until ~150 W and ~100 W when the weak and strong stimulations were used, respectively. Further increases in cycling intensity revealed no changes on MEP or CMEP amplitudes for either stimulation strength. Conclusions: In general, MEPs and CMEPs changed in a similar manner, suggesting that increases and subsequent plateaus in overall excitability are likely mediated by spinal factors. Interestingly, however, MEP amplitudes were disproportionately larger than CMEP amplitudes as power output increased, despite being initially matched in amplitude, particularly with strong stimulation. This suggests that supraspinal excitability is enhanced to a larger degree than spinal excitability as the power output of arm cycling increases.

scholarly journals Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent

2018 ◽  
Vol 120 (6) ◽  
pp. 2908-2921 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. J. Lockyer ◽  
R. J. Benson ◽  
A. P. Hynes ◽  
L. R. Alcock ◽  
A. J. Spence ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Power Output ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Peak Power Output ◽  
Triceps Brachii ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Power Outputs ◽  
Spinal Excitability

The present study investigated the effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability to the biceps (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS and cervicomedullary motor-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited by TMES were recorded at two positions during arm cycling corresponding to mid-elbow flexion and mid-elbow extension (i.e., 6 and 12 o’clock made relative to a clock face, respectively). Arm cycling was performed at combinations of two cadences (60 and 90 rpm) at three relative power outputs (20, 40, and 60% peak power output). At the 6 o’clock position, BB MEPs increased ~11.5% as cadence increased and up to ~57.2% as power output increased ( P < 0.05). In the TB, MEPs increased ~15.2% with cadence ( P = 0.013) but were not affected by power output, while CMEPs increased with cadence (~16.3%) and power output (up to ~19.1%, P < 0.05). At the 12 o’clock position, BB MEPs increased ~26.8% as cadence increased and up to ~96.1% as power output increased ( P < 0.05), while CMEPs decreased ~29.7% with cadence ( P = 0.013) and did not change with power output ( P = 0.851). In contrast, TB MEPs were not different with cadence or power output, while CMEPs increased ~12.8% with cadence and up to ~23.1% with power output ( P < 0.05). These data suggest that the “type” of intensity differentially modulates supraspinal and spinal excitability in a manner that is phase- and muscle dependent. NEW & NOTEWORTHY There is currently little information available on how changes in locomotor intensity influence excitability within the corticospinal pathway. This study investigated the effects of arm cycling intensity (i.e., alterations in cadence and power output) on corticospinal excitability projecting to the biceps and triceps brachii during arm cycling. We demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is modulated differentially by cadence and power output and that these modulations are dependent on the phase and the muscle examined.

Arm-cycling sprints induce neuromuscular fatigue of the elbow flexors and alter corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory E.P. Pearcey ◽  
David J. Bradbury-Squires ◽  
Michael Monks ◽  
Devin Philpott ◽  
Kevin E. Power ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Neuromuscular Fatigue ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Voluntary Activation ◽  
Elbow Flexors ◽  
Mean Power ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Spinal Excitability

We examined the effects of arm-cycling sprints on maximal voluntary elbow flexion and corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii. Recreationally trained athletes performed ten 10-s arm-cycling sprints interspersed with 150 s of rest in 2 separate experiments. In experiment A (n = 12), maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) force of the elbow flexors was measured at pre-sprint 1, post-sprint 5, and post-sprint 10. Participants received electrical motor point stimulation during and following the elbow flexor MVCs to estimate voluntary activation (VA). In experiment B (n = 7 participants from experiment A), supraspinal and spinal excitability of the biceps brachii were measured via transcranial magnetic and transmastoid electrical stimulation that produced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs), respectively, during a 5% isometric MVC at pre-sprint 1, post-sprint 1, post-sprint 5, and post-sprint 10. In experiment A, mean power output, MVC force, potentiated twitch force, and VA decreased 13.1% (p < 0.001), 8.7% (p = 0.036), 27.6% (p = 0.003), and 5.6% (p = 0.037), respectively, from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 10. In experiment B, (i) MEPs decreased 42.1% (p = 0.002) from pre-sprint 1 to post-sprint 5 and increased 40.1% (p = 0.038) from post-sprint 5 to post-sprint 10 and (ii) CMEPs increased 28.5% (p = 0.045) from post-sprint 1 to post-sprint 10. Overall, arm-cycling sprints caused neuromuscular fatigue of the elbow flexors, which corresponded with decreased supraspinal and increased spinal excitability of the biceps brachii. The different post-sprint effects on supraspinal and spinal excitability may illustrate an inhibitory effect on supraspinal drive that reduces motor output and, therefore, decreases arm-cycling sprint performance.

Corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii is higher during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction

2014 ◽  
Vol 112 (5) ◽  
pp. 1142-1151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davis Forman ◽  
Amita Raj ◽  
Duane C. Button ◽  
Kevin E. Power
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Maximum Amplitude ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Tonic Contraction ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Spinal Motoneuron ◽  
Motoneuron Excitability ◽  
Arm Cycling

Human studies have not assessed corticospinal excitability of an upper-limb prime mover during arm cycling. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether supraspinal and/or spinal motoneuron excitability of the biceps brachii was different between arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction. We hypothesized that spinal motoneuron excitability would be higher during arm cycling than an intensity-matched tonic contraction. Supraspinal and spinal motoneuron excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. TMS-induced motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMES-induced cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) were assessed at three separate positions (3, 6, and 12 o'clock relative to a clock face) during arm cycling and an intensity-matched tonic contraction. MEP amplitudes were 7.2 and 8.8% maximum amplitude of the compound muscle action potential (Mmax) larger during arm cycling compared with a tonic contraction at the 3 ( P < 0.001) and 6 o'clock ( P < 0.001) positions, respectively. There was no difference between tasks during elbow extension (12 o'clock). CMEP amplitudes were 5.2% Mmax larger during arm cycling compared with a tonic contraction at the 3 o'clock position ( P < 0.001) with no differences seen at midflexion (6 o'clock) or extension (12 o'clock). The data indicate an increase in the excitability of corticospinal neurons, which ultimately project to biceps brachii during the elbow flexion portion of arm cycling, and increased spinal motoneuron excitability at the onset of elbow flexion during arm cycling. We conclude that supraspinal and spinal motoneuron excitability are phase- and task-dependent.

Mechanical Evaluation of the Pronator Teres Rerouting Tendon Transfer

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. E. J. VEEGER ◽  
M. KREULEN ◽  
M. J. C. SMEULDERS
Keyword(s):  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
External Rotation ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Muscle Length ◽  
Biomechanical Model ◽  
Elbow Flexion ◽  
Axial Rotation ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Pronator Quadratus ◽  
Pronator Teres

We simulated pronator teres rerouting using a three-dimensional biomechanical model of the arm. Simulations comprised the evaluation of changes in muscle length and the moment arm of pronator teres with changes in forearm axial rotation and elbow flexion. The rerouting of Pronator Teres was simulated by defining a path for it through the interosseous membrane with re-attachment to its original insertion. However the effect of moving the insertion to new positions, 2 cm below and above, the original position was also assessed. The effect on total internal rotation and external rotation capacity was determined by calculating the potential moments for pronator teres, supinator, pronator quadratus, biceps brachii and brachioradialis. Pronator teres was found to be a weak internal rotator in extreme pronation, but a strong internal rotator in neutral rotation and in supination. After rerouting pronator teres was only a strong external rotator in full pronation and not at other forearm positions, where the effect of rerouting was comparable to a release procedure.

Increased corticospinal excitability prior to arm cycling is due to enhanced supraspinal but not spinal motoneurone excitability

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (11) ◽  
pp. 1154-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin E. Power ◽  
David B. Copithorne
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Corticospinal Tract ◽  
Biceps Brachii ◽  
Motor Evoked Potentials ◽  
Corticospinal Excitability ◽  
Quiescent State ◽  
M Wave ◽  
Arm Cycling ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Stimulation Of

Human studies have not assessed supraspinal or spinal motoneurone excitability in the quiescent state prior to a rhythmic and alternating cyclical motor output. The purpose of the current study was to determine whether supraspinal and (or) spinal motoneurone excitability was modulated in humans prior to arm cycling when compared with rest with no intention to move. We hypothesized that corticospinal excitability would be enhanced prior to arm cycling due, in part, to increased spinal motoneurone excitability. Supraspinal and spinal motoneurone excitability were assessed via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid stimulation of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Surface electromyography recordings of TMS motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary MEPs (CMEPs) were made from the relaxed biceps brachii muscle prior to rhythmic arm cycling and at rest with no intention to move. The amplitude of the MEPs was greater (mean increase: +9.8% of maximal M wave; p = 0.006) and their onset latencies were shorter (mean decrease: –1.5 ms; p < 0.05) prior to cycling when compared with rest. The amplitudes of the CMEPs at any of 3 stimulation intensities were not different between conditions. We conclude that premovement enhancement of corticospinal excitability is greater prior to arm cycling than at rest because of increases in supraspinal but not spinal motoneurone excitability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document