4.4 Article

Corticospinal excitability is altered similarly following concentric and eccentric maximal contractions

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 120, Issue 6, Pages 1457-1469

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00421-020-04377-7

Keywords

Contraction type; Motor evoked potential; Neuromuscular fatigue; Fatigue etiology; Silent period

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To examine corticospinal excitability and neuromuscular function following the completion of eccentric (ECC) or concentric (CON) maximal exercises of same mechanical work. Methods Ten males (29.9 +/- 11.8 years) performed maximal isokinetic knee extensor contractions in four experimental sessions. The two first sessions (one in ECC and one in CON) ended with a dynamic peak torque loss of 20%. The work completed in each contraction type was then achieved in the other contraction type. Neuromuscular function- maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVIC), voluntary activation level (VAL), potentiated doublet (Dt), M-wave- and corticospinal excitability- motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude and silent period (SP)-were assessed in the vastus lateralis (VL) and rectus femoris (RF) muscles at 20% MVIC before and immediately after exercise. Results To lose 20% of dynamic peak torque subjects performed 1.8 times more work in ECC than CON (P = 0.03), inducing a non-different decline in MVIC (P = 0.15). VAL dropped after the ECC sessions only (- 8.5 +/- 6.7%; all P < 0.027). Only, the CON session featuring the greatest work affected Dt amplitude (- 9.4 +/- 23.8%; P = 0.047). In both muscles, MEP amplitude decreased (all P < 0.001) and MEP SP stayed constant (all P > 0.45), irrespective of contraction type (all P > 0.15). Conclusion Same-work maximal ECC and CON exercises induced similar fatigue level but from different origins (preferentially central for ECC vs peripheral for CON). Yet, net corticospinal excitability did not depend on contraction type.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available