Chronic resistance training enhances the spinal excitability of the biceps brachii in the non-dominant arm at moderate contraction intensities

Philpott, Devin T. G.; Pearcey, Gregory E. P.; Forman, Davis A.; Power, Kevin E.; Button, Duane C.

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2014.11.009

Cited by 23 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The loads used in the present study were significantly different from each other in terms of motoneurone output as seen in the pre-stimulus EMG (see Figure 3C,D and Figure 5C,E), which is a general measure of muscle contraction intensity (i.e., the higher the pre-stimulus EMG the more active the muscle). Previous work examining the CSE to the biceps brachii during isometric contractions have reported increases in both MEP and CMEP amplitudes as the contraction intensity increases, up to a limit of approximately 60% of maximal voluntary contraction force output [18,24]. This suggests that spinal excitability contributed to the overall increase in CSE seen during these experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Arm dominance was determined using the Edinburg handedness inventory: short form [22], to ensure that evoked potentials were recorded from the dominant arm. Given that the motor output assessed was bilateral, it was important to identify the dominant arm because of potential differences in their neural control [23,24]. Participants had no known neurological impairments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vertex was determined by measuring the mid-point between the participant’s nasion and inion, and the mid-point between the participant’s tragi. The intersection of these two points was measured, marked and defined as vertex [8,15,18,24,27]. The coil was held tangentially to the participant’s skull, approximately parallel to the floor, with the direction of the current flow preferentially activating either the left or right motor cortex (depending on hand dominance).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the first study to examine corticospinal excitability (CSE) to antagonistic muscle groups during arm cycling. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract were used to assess changes in supraspinal and spinal excitability, respectively. TMS induced motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMES induced cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded from the biceps and triceps brachii at two positions, mid-elbow flexion and extension, while cycling at 5% and 15% of peak power output. While phase-dependent modulation of MEP and CMEP amplitudes occurred in the biceps brachii, there was no difference between flexion and extension for MEP amplitudes in the triceps brachii and CMEP amplitudes were higher during flexion than extension. Furthermore, MEP amplitudes in both biceps and triceps brachii increased with increased workload. CMEP amplitudes increased with higher workloads in the triceps brachii, but not biceps brachii, though the pattern of change in CMEPs was similar to MEPs. Differences between changes in CSE between the biceps and triceps brachii suggest that these antagonistic muscles may be under different neural control during arm cycling. Putative mechanisms are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vertex was determined by measuring the mid-point between the participant’s nasion and inion, and the mid-point between the participant’s tragi. The intersection of these two points was measured, marked and defined as vertex (Forman et al, 2014, 2015, 2016b; Pearcey et al, 2014; Copithorne et al, 2015; Philpott et al, 2015). The coil was held tangentially to the participant’s skull (approximately parallel to the floor) with the direction of the current flow preferentially activating the left motor cortex.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion

Forman

Richards

Forman

et al. 2016

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of neutral and pronated handgrip positions on corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii during arm cycling. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were assessed using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited via transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and cervicomedullary-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited via transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES), respectively. Participants were seated upright in front on arm cycle ergometer. Responses were recorded from the biceps brachii at two different crank positions (6 and 12 o’clock positions relative to a clock face) while arm cycling with neutral and pronated handgrip positions. Responses were also elicited during tonic elbow flexion to compare/contrast the results to a non-rhythmic motor output. MEP and CMEP amplitudes were significantly larger at the 6 o’clock position while arm cycling with a neutral handgrip position compared to pronated (45.6 and 29.9%, respectively). There were no differences in MEP and CMEP amplitudes at the 12 o’clock position for either handgrip position. For the tonic contractions, MEPs were significantly larger with a neutral vs. pronated handgrip position (32.6% greater) while there were no difference in CMEPs. Corticospinal excitability was higher with a neutral handgrip position for both arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion. While spinal excitability was also higher with a neutral handgrip position during arm cycling, no difference was observed during tonic elbow flexion. These findings suggest that not only is corticospinal excitability to the biceps brachii modulated at both the supraspinal and spinal level, but that it is influenced differently between rhythmic arm cycling and tonic elbow flexion.

show abstract

“…have previously shown during tonic contractions (Pearcey et al 2014;Philpott et al 2015). Second, at the highest power output (60% W max ), increases in cadence did not result in a significant increase in biceps brachii MEP amplitudes at the 6 o'clock position (i.e., midelbow flexion; Fig.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent

Lockyer

Benson

Hynes

et al. 2018

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lockyer EJ, Benson RJ, Hynes AP, Alcock LR, Spence AJ, Button DC, Power KE. Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent. The present study investigated the effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability to the biceps (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS and cervicomedullary motor-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited by TMES were recorded at two positions during arm cycling corresponding to mid-elbow flexion and mid-elbow extension (i.e., 6 and 12 o'clock made relative to a clock face, respectively). Arm cycling was performed at combinations of two cadences (60 and 90 rpm) at three relative power outputs (20, 40, and 60% peak power output). At the 6 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased~11.5% as cadence increased and up to~57.2% as power output increased (P Ͻ 0.05). In the TB, MEPs increased~15.2% with cadence (P ϭ 0.013) but were not affected by power output, while CMEPs increased with cadence (~16.3%) and power output (up to~19.1%, P Ͻ 0.05). At the 12 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased~26.8% as cadence increased and up to~96.1% as power output increased (P Ͻ 0.05), while CMEPs decreased~29.7% with cadence (P ϭ 0.013) and did not change with power output (P ϭ 0.851). In contrast, TB MEPs were not different with cadence or power output, while CMEPs increased 12.8% with cadence and up to~23.1% with power output (P Ͻ 0.05). These data suggest that the "type" of intensity differentially modulates supraspinal and spinal excitability in a manner that is phase-and muscle dependent. NEW & NOTEWORTHYThere is currently little information available on how changes in locomotor intensity influence excitability within the corticospinal pathway. This study investigated the effects of arm cycling intensity (i.e., alterations in cadence and power output) on corticospinal excitability projecting to the biceps and triceps brachii during arm cycling. We demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is modulated differentially by cadence and power output and that these modulations are dependent on the phase and the muscle examined.

show abstract

Chronic resistance training enhances the spinal excitability of the biceps brachii in the non-dominant arm at moderate contraction intensities

Cited by 23 publications

References 46 publications

Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling

Phase- and Workload-Dependent Changes in Corticospinal Excitability to the Biceps and Triceps Brachii during Arm Cycling

Changes in Corticospinal and Spinal Excitability to the Biceps Brachii with a Neutral vs. Pronated Handgrip Position Differ between Arm Cycling and Tonic Elbow Flexion

Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About