Fatigue was induced in the triceps brachii of the experimental arm by a regimen of either eccentric or concentric muscle actions. Estimates of force were assessed using a contralateral limb‐matching procedure, in which target force levels (25 %, 50 % or 75 % of maximum) were defined by the unfatigued control arm. Maximum isometric force‐generating capacity was reduced by 31 % immediately following eccentric contractions, and remained depressed at 24 (25 %) and 48 h (13 %) post‐exercise. A less marked reduction (8.3 %) was observed immediately following concentric contractions. Those participants who performed prior eccentric contractions, consistently (at all force levels), and persistently (throughout the recovery period), overestimated the level of force applied by the experimental arm. In other words, they believed that they were generating more force than they actually achieved. When the forces applied by the experimental and the control arm, were each expressed as a proportion of the maximum force that could be attained at that time, the estimates matched extremely closely. This outcome is that which would be expected if the estimates of force were based on a sense of effort. Following eccentric exercise, the amplitude of the EMG activity recorded from the experimental arm was substantially greater than that recorded from the control arm. Cortically evoked potentials recorded from the triceps brachii (and extensor carpi radialis) of the experimental arm were also substantially larger than those elicited prior to exercise. The sense of effort was evidently not based upon a corollary of the central motor command. Rather, the relationship between the sense of effort and the motor command appears to have been altered as a result of the fatiguing eccentric contractions. It is proposed that the sense of effort is associated with activity in neural centres upstream of the motor cortex.
Cross education is the process whereby training of one limb gives rise to enhancements in the performance of the opposite, untrained limb. Despite interest in this phenomenon having been sustained for more than a century, a comprehensive explanation of the mediating neural mechanisms remains elusive. With new evidence emerging that cross education may have therapeutic utility, the need to provide a principled evidential basis upon which to design interventions becomes ever more pressing. Generally, mechanistic accounts of cross education align with one of two explanatory frameworks. Models of the “cross activation” variety encapsulate the observation that unilateral execution of a movement task gives rise to bilateral increases in corticospinal excitability. The related conjecture is that such distributed activity, when present during unilateral practice, leads to simultaneous adaptations in neural circuits that project to the muscles of the untrained limb, thus facilitating subsequent performance of the task. Alternatively, “bilateral access” models entail that motor engrams formed during unilateral practice, may subsequently be utilized bilaterally—that is, by the neural circuitry that constitutes the control centers for movements of both limbs. At present there is a paucity of direct evidence that allows the corresponding neural processes to be delineated, or their relative contributions in different task contexts to be ascertained. In the current review we seek to synthesize and assimilate the fragmentary information that is available, including consideration of knowledge that has emerged as a result of technological advances in structural and functional brain imaging. An emphasis upon task dependency is maintained throughout, the conviction being that the neural mechanisms that mediate cross education may only be understood in this context.
It has long been believed that resistance training is accompanied by changes within the nervous system that play an important role in the development of strength. Many elements of the nervous system exhibit the potential for adaptation in response to resistance training, including supraspinal centres, descending neural tracts, spinal circuitry and the motor end plate connections between motoneurons and muscle fibres. Yet the specific sites of adaptation along the neuraxis have seldom been identified experimentally, and much of the evidence for neural adaptations following resistance training remains indirect. As a consequence of this current lack of knowledge, there exists uncertainty regarding the manner in which resistance training impacts upon the control and execution of functional movements. We aim to demonstrate that resistance training is likely to cause adaptations to many neural elements that are involved in the control of movement, and is therefore likely to affect movement execution during a wide range of tasks. We review a small number of experiments that provide evidence that resistance training affects the way in which muscles that have been engaged during training are recruited during related movement tasks. The concepts addressed in this article represent an important new approach to research on the effects of resistance training. They are also of considerable practical importance, since most individuals perform resistance training in the expectation that it will enhance their performance in related functional tasks.
Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS) has come to prominence as a potential therapeutic intervention for the treatment of brain injury/disease, and as an experimental method with which to investigate Hebbian principles of neural plasticity in humans. Prototypically, a single electrical stimulus is directed to a peripheral nerve in advance of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) delivered to the contralateral primary motor cortex (M1). Repeated pairing of the stimuli (i.e., association) over an extended period may increase or decrease the excitability of corticospinal projections from M1, in manner that depends on the interstimulus interval (ISI). It has been suggested that these effects represent a form of associative long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) that bears resemblance to spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) as it has been elaborated in animal models. With a large body of empirical evidence having emerged since the cardinal features of PAS were first described, and in light of the variations from the original protocols that have been implemented, it is opportune to consider whether the phenomenology of PAS remains consistent with the characteristic features that were initially disclosed. This assessment necessarily has bearing upon interpretation of the effects of PAS in relation to the specific cellular pathways that are putatively engaged, including those that adhere to the rules of STDP. The balance of evidence suggests that the mechanisms that contribute to the LTP- and LTD-type responses to PAS differ depending on the precise nature of the induction protocol that is used. In addition to emphasizing the requirement for additional explanatory models, in the present analysis we highlight the key features of the PAS phenomenology that require interpretation.
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.