4.6 Article

Short-interval intracortical inhibition in knee extensors during locomotor cycling

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGICA
卷 207, 期 1, 页码 194-201

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/apha.12004

关键词

leg cycling; motor cortex; transcranial magnetic stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) can provide information on changes in cortical responsiveness during voluntary contractions. It is, however, unknown whether the magnitude of SICI changes throughout the cycle of rhythmic movements such as leg cycling. Methods The effects of four conditioning stimulus (CS) intensities, 70, 80, 90 and 95% of active motor threshold (AMT), on the magnitude of SICI were tested during three conditions: (1) activation phase of the electromyography (EMG) burst, (2) deactivation phase of the EMG burst and (3) static contractions. The three conditions were matched for EMG amplitude and test motor-evoked potential (MEP) size with reference to the vastus lateralis muscle. Responses were also recorded from rectus femoris and vastus medialis. Results short-interval cortical inhibition was weak during static knee contractions (15% reduction in control MEP) relative to previous reports during contractions in other muscle groups. SICI was abolished during the activation phase of the knee extensor EMG burst (P > 0.05), but present (approx. 90% of control MEP size) during the deactivation phase of EMG (P < 0.05). Furthermore, inhibition was elicited at a lower CS intensity during the deactivation phase of EMG during cycling than during static contractions (70 AMT vs. 90% AMT). Conclusion The results suggest that the efficacy of intracortical inhibitory projections to knee extensor corticomotoneurons is particularly weak during muscle activation. A lower threshold of activation for inhibitory cells during deactivation phase of cycling EMG was evident, and there was a phasic modulation of intracortical inhibition affecting corticospinal projections to the working muscles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据