A short bout of high-intensity exercise alters ipsilesional motor cortical excitability post-stroke

Li, Xin; Charalambous, Charalambos C.; Reisman, Darcy S.; Morton, Susanne M.

doi:10.1080/10749357.2019.1623458

Cited by 17 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(66 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, studies should further examine how exercise can be used as a motor rehabilitation strategy after neural injury. This would complement preliminary findings that exercise may help promote poststroke motor relearning 27 , functional recovery 44 , and neuroplasticity 45 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Aerobic exercise and aerobic fitness level do not modify motor learning

Hung

Roig

Gillen

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Motor learning may be enhanced when a single session of aerobic exercise is performed immediately before or after motor skill practice. Most research to date has focused on aerobically trained (AT) individuals, but it is unknown if aerobically untrained (AU) individuals would equally benefit. We aimed to: (a) replicate previous studies and determine the effect of rest (REST) versus exercise (EXE) on motor skill retention, and (b) explore the effect of aerobic fitness level (AU, AT), assessed by peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak), on motor skill retention after exercise. Forty-four participants (20–29 years) practiced a visuomotor tracking task (acquisition), immediately followed by 25-min of high-intensity cycling or rest. Twenty-four hours after acquisition, participants completed a motor skill retention test. REST and EXE groups significantly improved motor skill performance during acquisition [F(3.17, 133.22) = 269.13, P = 0.001], but had no group differences in motor skill retention across time. AU-exercise (VO2peak = 31.6 ± 4.2 ml kg−1 min−1) and AT-exercise (VO2peak = 51.5 ± 7.6 ml kg−1 min−1) groups significantly improved motor skill performance during acquisition [F(3.07, 61.44) = 155.95, P = 0.001], but had no group differences in motor skill retention across time. Therefore, exercise or aerobic fitness level did not modify motor skill retention.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 65%

Aerobic exercise and aerobic fitness level do not modify motor learning

Hung

Roig

Gillen

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, it is important to note that these data were obtained from healthy, low fit, young adults. Li et al [22] recently showed that fast treadmill walking increases MEPs from the lesioned hemisphere in those with chronic stroke. This suggests that high-intensity exercise is a feasible method to increase motor output in stroke rehabilitation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, it is important to identify exercise regimes that increase corticospinal excitability this population. Rehabilitation can capitalize on the post-exercise increases in corticospinal excitability, as this can prime the motor system for improvements in motor learning or re-learning [2,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has demonstrated a lack of neuroplasticity induced by acute exercise in low fit individuals, but the influence of exercise intensity is unclear. In the present study, we assessed the effect of acute high-intensity (HI) or moderate-intensity (MOD) interval exercise on neuroplasticity in individuals with low fitness, as determined by a peak oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ) test (n = 19). Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to assess corticospinal excitability via area under the motor evoked potential (MEP) recruitment curve before and following training. Corticospinal excitability was unchanged after HI and MOD, suggesting no effect of acute exercise on neuroplasticity as measured via TMS in sedentary, young individuals. Repeated bouts of exercise, i.e., physical training, may be required to induce short-term changes in corticospinal excitability in previously sedentary individuals. OPEN ACCESSCitation: El-Sayes J, Turco CV, Skelly LE, Locke MB, Gibala MJ, Nelson AJ (2020) Acute highintensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227581. https://

show abstract

“…Improved CV fitness was used in 13 of the studies (76%) (39,40,44,(50)(51)(52)(53). Changes to brain activity measured by an electroencephalogram (EEG) was reported in 5 (29%) of the 17 studies (47,50,(54)(55)(56).…”

Section: Desired Training Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is Intensity and How Can It Benefit Exercise Intervention in People With Stroke? A Rapid Review

Church¹,

Smith²,

Ali³

et al. 2021

Front. Rehabilit. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Stroke is one of the major causes of chronic physical disability in the United Kingdom, typically characterized by unilateral weakness and a loss of muscle power and movement coordination. When combined with pre-existing comorbidities such as cardiac disease and diabetes, it results in reductions in cardiovascular (CV) fitness, physical activity levels, functional capacity, and levels of independent living. High-intensity training protocols have shown promising improvements in fitness and function for people with stroke (PwS). However, it remains unclear how intensity is defined, measured, and prescribed in this population. Further, we do not know what the optimal outcome measures are to capture the benefits of intensive exercise.Aim: To understand how intensity is defined and calibrated in the stroke exercise literature to date and how the benefits of high-intensity training in PwS are measured.Methods: A rapid review of the literature was undertaken to provide an evidence synthesis that would provide more timely information for decision-making (compared with a standard systematic review). Electronic databases were searched (including Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase for studies from 2015 to 2020). These were screened by title and abstract for inclusion if they: (a) were specific to adult PwS; and (b) were high-intensity exercise interventions. Eligible studies were critically appraised using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The data extraction tool recorded the definition of intensity, methods used to measure and progress intensity within sessions, and the outcomes measure used to capture the effects of the exercise intervention.Results: Seventeen studies were selected for review, 15 primary research studies and two literature reviews. Sixteen of the 17 studies were of high quality. Nine of the primary research studies used bodyweight-supported treadmills to achieve the high-intensity training threshold, four used static exercise bikes, and two used isometric arm strengthening. Five of the primary research studies had the aim of increasing walking speed, five aimed to increase CV fitness, three aimed to improve electroencephalogram (EEG) measured cortical evoked potentials and corticospinal excitability, and two investigated any changes in muscle strength. Although only one study gave a clear definition of intensity, all studies clearly defined the high-intensity protocol used, with most (15 out of 17 studies) clearly describing threshold periods of high-intensity activity, followed by rest or active recovery periods (of varying times). All of the studies reviewed used outcomes specific to body structure and function (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) constructs), with fewer including outcomes relating to activity and only three outcomes relating to participation. The reported effect of high-intensity training on PwS was promising, however, the underlying impact on neurological, musculoskeletal, and CV systems was not clearly specified.Conclusions: There is a clear lack of definition and understanding about intensity and how thresholds of intensity in this population are used as an intervention. There is also an inconsistency about the most appropriate methods to assess and provide a training protocol based on that assessment. It remains unclear if high-intensity training impacts the desired body system, given the diverse presentation of PwS, from a neuromuscular, CV, functional, and psychosocial perspective. Future work needs to establish a clearer understanding of intensity and the impact of exercise training on multiple body systems in PwS. Further understanding into the appropriate assessment tools to enable appropriate prescription of intensity in exercise intervention is required. Outcomes need to capture measures specific not only to the body system, but also level of function and desired goals of individuals.

show abstract

A short bout of high-intensity exercise alters ipsilesional motor cortical excitability post-stroke

Cited by 17 publications

References 50 publications

Aerobic exercise and aerobic fitness level do not modify motor learning

Aerobic exercise and aerobic fitness level do not modify motor learning

Acute high-intensity and moderate-intensity interval exercise do not change corticospinal excitability in low fit, young adults

What Is Intensity and How Can It Benefit Exercise Intervention in People With Stroke? A Rapid Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About