1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Contraction intensity modulates spinal excitability during transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked silent period in rectus femoris muscle

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          Reduced spinal excitability during the transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) silent period (SP) has recently been shown to last longer than previously thought in the upper limbs, as assessed via spinal electrical stimulation. Further, there is reason to expect that contraction intensity affects the duration of the reduced spinal excitability.

          Methods

          This study investigated spinal excitability at different time delays within the TMS-evoked SP in m.rectus femoris. Fifteen participants performed non-fatiguing isometric knee extensions at 25%, 50% and 75% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC). Lumbar stimulation (LS) induced a lumbar-evoked potential (LEP) of 50% resting M-max. TMS stimulator output induced a SP lasting ~ 200 ms. In each contraction, a LEP (unconditioned) was delivered ~ 2–3 s prior to TMS, which was followed by a second LEP (conditioned) 60, 90, 120 or 150 ms into the silent period. Five contractions were performed at each contraction intensity and for each time delay in random order.

          Results

          Compared to the unconditioned LEP, the conditioned LEP amplitude was reduced (− 28 ± 34%, p = 0.007) only at 60 ms during 25% of MVC. Conditioned LEP amplitudes during 50% and 75% of MVC were reduced at 60 ms (− 37 ± 47%, p = 0.009 and − 37 ± 42%, p = 0.005, respectively) and 150 ms (− 30% ± 37%, p = 0.0083 and − 37 ± 43%, p = 0.005, respectively). LEP amplitude at 90 ms during 50% of MVC also reduced (− 25 ± 35%, p = 0.013).

          Conclusion

          Reduced spinal excitability is extended during 50% and 75% of MVC. In future, paired TMS-LS could be a potential method to understand changes in spinal excitability during SP (at different contraction intensities) when testing various neurophysiological phenomena.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

          This article is based on a consensus conference, which took place in Certosa di Pontignano, Siena (Italy) on March 7-9, 2008, intended to update the previous safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings. Over the past decade the scientific and medical community has had the opportunity to evaluate the safety record of research studies and clinical applications of TMS and repetitive TMS (rTMS). In these years the number of applications of conventional TMS has grown impressively, new paradigms of stimulation have been developed (e.g., patterned repetitive TMS) and technical advances have led to new device designs and to the real-time integration of TMS with electroencephalography (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Thousands of healthy subjects and patients with various neurological and psychiatric diseases have undergone TMS allowing a better assessment of relative risks. The occurrence of seizures (i.e., the most serious TMS-related acute adverse effect) has been extremely rare, with most of the few new cases receiving rTMS exceeding previous guidelines, often in patients under treatment with drugs which potentially lower the seizure threshold. The present updated guidelines review issues of risk and safety of conventional TMS protocols, address the undesired effects and risks of emerging TMS interventions, the applications of TMS in patients with implanted electrodes in the central nervous system, and safety aspects of TMS in neuroimaging environments. We cover recommended limits of stimulation parameters and other important precautions, monitoring of subjects, expertise of the rTMS team, and ethical issues. While all the recommendations here are expert based, they utilize published data to the extent possible.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              NON-INVASIVE MAGNETIC STIMULATION OF HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                gogomezg@jyu.fi
                Journal
                Eur J Appl Physiol
                Eur J Appl Physiol
                European Journal of Applied Physiology
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                1439-6319
                1439-6327
                30 November 2023
                30 November 2023
                2024
                : 124
                : 5
                : 1355-1366
                Affiliations
                [1 ]NeuroMuscular Research Center (NMRC), Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, ( https://ror.org/05n3dz165) Viveca (VIV221), 40700 Jyväskylä, Finland
                [2 ]Faculty of Health and Life Science, Northumbria University, ( https://ror.org/049e6bc10) Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
                [3 ]Water Research Group, North West University, ( https://ror.org/010f1sq29) Potchefstroom, South Africa
                Author notes

                Communicated by Toshio Moritani.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6910-7741
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7542-1107
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8494-2043
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-9952
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6804-0741
                Article
                5367
                10.1007/s00421-023-05367-1
                11055719
                38032387
                1a64f4d2-0682-493c-bd3c-99b339a4781a
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 5 June 2023
                : 8 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Jyväskylä (JYU)
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024

                Anatomy & Physiology
                lumbar stimulation,spinal inhibition,lower limbs,force production,cortico-spinal tract

                Comments

                Comment on this article