4.6 Article

Cervical spine manipulation alters sensorimotor integration: A somatosensory evoked potential study

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 118, 期 2, 页码 391-402

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2006.09.014

关键词

cervical spine manipulation; human; somatosensory evoked potentials; brain plasticity; somatosensory system; sensorimotor integration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To study the immediate sensorimotor neurophysiological effects of cervical spine manipulation using somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs). Methods: Twelve subjects with a history of reoccurring neck stiffness and/or neck pain, but no acute symptoms at the time of the study were invited to participate in the study. An additional twelve subjects participated in a passive head movement control experiment. Spinal (N11, N13) brainstem (P14) and cortical (N20, N30) SEPs to median nerve stimulation were recorded before and for 30 min after a single session of cervical spine manipulation, or passive head movement. Results: There was a significant decrease in the amplitude of parietal N20 and frontal N30 SEP components following the single session of cervical spine manipulation compared to pre-manipulation baseline values. These changes lasted on average 20 min following the manipulation intervention. No changes were observed in the passive head movement control condition. Conclusions: Spinal manipulation of dysfunctional cervical joints can lead to transient cortical plastic changes, as demonstrated by attenuation of cortical somatosensory evoked responses. Significance: This study suggests that cervical spine manipulation may alter cortical somatosensory processing and sensorimotor integration. These findings may help to elucidate the mechanisms responsible for the effective relief of pain and restoration of functional ability documented following spinal manipulation treatment. (c) 2006 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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