Paired associative stimulation at the spinal cord (spinal PAS) has been shown to increase muscle force and dexterity by strengthening the corticomuscular connection, through spike timing dependent plasticity. Typically, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcutaneous peripheral nerve electrical stimulation (PNS) are often used in spinal PAS. PNS targets superficial nerve branches, by which the number of applicable muscles is limited. Alternatively, a muscle can be activated by positioning the stimulation electrode on the “motor point” (MPS), which is the most sensitive location of a muscle to electrical stimulation. Although this can increase the number of applicable muscles for spinal PAS, nobody has tested whether MPS can be used for the spinal PAS to date. Here we investigated the feasibility of using MPS instead of PNS for spinal PAS. Ten healthy male individuals (26.0 ± 3.5 yrs) received spinal PAS on two separate days with different stimulation timings expected to induce (1) facilitation of corticospinal excitability (REAL) or (2) no effect (CONTROL) on the soleus. The motor evoked potentials (MEP) response curve in the soleus was measured prior to the spinal PAS, immediately after (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30 min post-intervention as a measure of corticospinal excitability. The post-intervention MEP response curve areas were larger in the REAL condition than the CONTROL conditions. Further, the post-intervention MEP response curve areas were significantly larger than pre-intervention in the REAL condition but not in the CONTROL condition. We conclude that MPS can facilitate corticospinal excitability through spinal PAS.

Plantarflexors such as the soleus (SOL) and medial gastrocnemius (MG) play key roles in controlling bipedal stance; however, how the central nervous system controls the activation levels of these plantarflexors is not well understood. Here we investigated how the central nervous system controls the plantarflexors' activation level during quiet standing in a cosine tuning manner where the maximal activation is achieved in a preferred direction (PD). Further, we investigated how spinal cord injury affects these plantarflexors' activations. Thirteen healthy adults (AB) and thirteen individuals with chronic, incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) performed quiet standing trials. Their body kinematics, kinetics as well as electromyography signals from the MG and SOL were recorded. In the AB-group, we found that the plantarflexors followed the cosine tuning manner during quiet standing. That is, MG was most active when the ratio of plantarflexion torque to knee extension torque was approximately 2:-3, while SOL was most active when the ratio was approximately 2:1. This suggests that the SOL muscle despite being a monoarticular muscle is sensitive to both ankle plantarflexion and knee extension during quiet standing. The difference in the PDs accounts for the phasic activity of MG and for the tonic activity of SOL. Unlike the AB-group, the MG's activity was similar to the SOL's activity in the iSCI-group, and the SOL PDs were similar to the ones in the AB-group. This result suggests that chronic iSCI affects the control strategy, i.e., cosine tuning, for MG, which may affect standing balance in individuals with iSCI.

Previous findings indicate that co-contractions of plantarflexors and dorsiflexors during quiet standing increase the ankle mechanical joint stiffness, resulting in increased postural sway. Balance impairments in individuals with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) may be due to co-contractions like in other individuals with reduced balance ability. Here we investigated the effect of co-contraction between plantar- and dorsiflexors on postural balance in individuals with iSCI (iSCI-group) and able-bodied individuals (AB-group). Thirteen able-bodied individuals and 13 individuals with iSCI were asked to perform quiet standing with their eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC). Kinetics and electromyograms from the tibialis anterior (TA), soleus and medial gastrocnemius were collected bilaterally. The iSCI-group exhibited more co-contractions than the AB-group (EO: 0.208% vs. 75.163%, p = 0.004; EC: 1.767% vs. 92.373%, p = 0.016). Furthermore, postural sway was larger during co-contractions than during no co-contraction in the iSCI-group (EO: 1.405 cm/s2 vs. 0.867 cm/s2, p = 0.023; EC: 1.831 cm/s2 vs. 1.179 cm/s2, p = 0.030), but no differences were found for the AB-group (EO: 0.393 cm/s2 vs. 0.499 cm/s2, p = 1.00; EC: 0.686 cm/s2 vs. 0.654 cm/s2, p = 1.00). To investigate the mechanism, we performed a computational simulation study using an inverted pendulum model and linear controllers. An increase of mechanical stiffness in the simulated iSCI-group resulted in increased postural sway (EO: 2.520 cm/s2 vs. 1.174 cm/s2, p < 0.001; EC: 4.226 cm/s2 vs. 1.836 cm/s2, p < 0.001), but not for the simulated AB-group (EO: 0.658 cm/s2 vs. 0.658 cm/s2, p = 1.00; EC: 0.943 cm/s2 vs. 0.926 cm/s2, p = 0.190). Thus, we demonstrated that co-contractions may be a compensatory strategy for individuals with iSCI to accommodate for decreased motor function, but co-contractions may result in increased ankle mechanical joint stiffness and consequently postural sway.

No abstract

Transcutaneous electrical stimulation for inducing muscle contraction is widely used both in the clinical neurorehabilitation field and laboratory settings. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation can be delivered in several ways: e.g., peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) where the electrical stimulation is applied on the nerve trunk, and motor point stimulation (MPS) where the electrical stimulation is applied on the point most responsive to the stimuli on the muscle belly. 1 Although MPS is used clinically as functional electrical stimulation for the rehabilitation of

The F‐wave is a motor response induced by electrical stimulation of peripheral nerves via the antidromic firing of motor nerves, which reflects the motoneuron excitability. To induce F‐waves, transcutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is used, which activates nerve branches via transcutaneous electrodes over the nerve branches. An alternative method to activate peripheral nerves, that is, motor point stimulation (MPS), which delivers electrical stimulation over the muscle belly, has not been used to induce F‐waves. In our previous studies, we observed that MPS induced F‐wave‐like responses, that is, motor responses at the latency of F‐waves at a supramaximal stimulation. Here, we further investigated the F‐wave‐like responses induced by MPS in comparison with PNS in the soleus muscle. Thirteen individuals participated in this study. We applied MPS and PNS on the participant's left soleus muscle. Using a monopolar double‐pulse stimulation, the amplitude of the second H‐reflex induced by PNS decreased, whereas the amplitude of the motor response at the F‐wave latency induced by MPS did not decrease. These results suggest that the motor response at the F‐wave latency induced by MPS was not an H‐reflex but an F‐wave. We also found that the F‐wave induced by MPS had a greater amplitude and higher persistence and caused less pain when compared with the F‐waves induced using PNS. We conclude that MPS evokes antidromic firing inducing F‐waves more consistently compared with PNS.

Objective The study objective was to assess the feasibility of stimulating the lower trapezius (LT), the upper trapezius (UT) and serratus anterior (SA) muscles along with anterior or middle deltoid, using surface functional electrical stimulation (FES). The secondary aim was to understand the effects of LT, UT, and SA stimulation on maximum arm reach achieved in shoulder flexion and abduction. Design Single arm interventional study. Setting Inpatient Rehabilitation Hospital. Participants Ten healthy volunteers. Intervention Participants completed 10 trials for each of the 3 conditions in flexion and abduction, i.e . (1) Active voluntary flexion or abduction, (2) FES for anterior deltoid for flexion or middle deltoid for abduction, and (3) FES for LT, UT, and SA along with anterior deltoid for flexion or middle deltoid for abduction. Outcome Measures Maximum arm reach and percent angle relative to the voluntary movement were computed from motion capture data for each condition. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the maximum reach between two FES conditions. Results The study results showed that all three interscapular muscles can be stimulated using surface FES. Maximum reach in abduction was greater for FES of middle deltoid along with the interscapular muscles (51.77° ± 17.54°) compared to FES for middle deltoid alone (43.76° ± 15.32°; Z = −2.701, P = 0.007). Maximum reach in flexion for FES of anterior deltoid, along with interscapular muscles, was similar to that during FES of anterior deltoid alone. Conclusion Interscapular muscles can be stimulated using surface FES devices and should be engaged during rehabilitation as appropriate.

No abstract