Effects of different modalities of afferent stimuli of the lumbo‐sacral area on control of lumbar paravertebral muscles

Massé‐Alarie, Hugo; Shraim, Muath A.; Taylor, Janet L.; Hodges, Paul W.

doi:10.1111/ejn.15677

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study tested afferent conditioning (also known as short/long afferent inhibition for TMS hand studies) ( Massé-Alarie et al, 2022 ). Three peripheral stimulations were performed ((i) non-noxious and (ii) noxious (both with electrical current) and (iii) a muscle stimulation (with a figure of eight coil)) at ISIs of 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100 and 200 ms prior to TMS.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intracortical inhibitory and facilitatory circuits can be probed with paired-pulse TMS protocols and have been well documented in hand muscles ( Reis et al, 2008 ). Similar TMS protocols have been applied while testing M1 representation of low back muscles ( Massé-Alarie et al, 2016b ; Elgueta-Cancino et al, 2019 ; Massé-Alarie et al, 2022 ). To better understand the neural circuits underlying TMS outcomes, pharmacological agents and epidural recording have been combined to TMS ( Ziemann, 2015 ; Di Lazzaro et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one study tested the effect of various peripheral conditioning stimulations (cutaneous, muscle) at multiple intervals on corticospinal excitability. A significant inhibition was only presents at ISI 60 ms following muscle stimulation, suggesting no consistent peripheral modulation on M1 excitability ( Massé-Alarie et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its shape does not fit with all skull architectures that complexifies mapping more lateral and anterior cortical areas ( Desmons et al, 2021 ). The availability of a stronger figure-of-eight coil (e.g., D70 2 - The Magstim Co., Whitland, United Kingdom) allows a good trade-off between focality and power that needs to be considered especially for mapping studies of low back muscles ( Massé-Alarie et al, 2022 ; Shraim et al, 2022 ). Considering that most protocols necessitate the use of a MT to set TMS parameters (e.g., CS and TS intensities), the double cone or D70 2 coils should be preferred.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Desmons,

Theberge,

Mercier

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTranscranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used to investigate central nervous system mechanisms underlying motor control. Despite thousands of TMS studies on neurophysiological underpinnings of corticomotor control, a large majority of studies have focused on distal muscles, and little is known about axial muscles (e.g., low back muscles). Yet, differences between corticomotor control of low back and distal muscles (e.g., gross vs. fine motor control) suggest differences in the neural circuits involved. This systematic review of the literature aims at detailing the organisation and neural circuitry underlying corticomotor control of low back muscles tested with TMS in healthy humans.MethodsThe literature search was performed in four databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline (Ovid) and Web of science) up to May 2022. Included studies had to use TMS in combination with EMG recording of paraspinal muscles (between T12 and L5) in healthy participants. Weighted average was used to synthesise quantitative study results.ResultsForty-four articles met the selection criteria. TMS studies of low back muscles provided consistent evidence of contralateral and ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (with longer ipsilateral latencies) as well as of short intracortical inhibition/facilitation. However, few or no studies using other paired pulse protocols were found (e.g., long intracortical inhibition, interhemispheric inhibition). In addition, no study explored the interaction between different cortical areas using dual TMS coil protocol (e.g., between primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area).DiscussionCorticomotor control of low back muscles are distinct from hand muscles. Our main findings suggest: (i) bilateral projections from each single primary motor cortex, for which contralateral and ipsilateral tracts are probably of different nature (contra: monosynaptic; ipsi: oligo/polysynaptic) and (ii) the presence of intracortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits in M1 influencing the excitability of the contralateral corticospinal cells projecting to low back muscles. Understanding of these mechanisms are important for improving the understanding of neuromuscular function of low back muscles and to improve the management of clinical populations (e.g., low back pain, stroke).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Desmons,

Theberge,

Mercier

et al. 2023

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using an off-line custom-made script in MATLAB, R1 signal was bandpass filtered (70–500 Hz) to reduce the EMG noise elicited by the muscle tap realized at the vicinity of the recording electrodes. Similar techniques were used for limiting the impact of peripheral stimulations (electrical, magnetic) on EMG of lumbar back muscles ( Massé-Alarie et al, 2019 , 2022 ). Considering the identification of individual R1 (elicited by a single muscle tap) may be difficult in some participants because of the small signal-to-noise ratio, the average of 15 EMG traces per condition was used to ease the identification of the motor response ( Dimitrijevic et al, 1980 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corticomotor control of lumbar erector spinae in postural and voluntary tasks: the influence of transcranial magnetic stimulation current direction

Mikaël,

Amira,

Antoine

et al. 2024

eNeuro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lumbar erector spinae (LES) contribute to spine postural and voluntary control. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) preferentially depolarizes different neural circuits depending on the direction of electrical currents evoked in the brain. Based on recent evidence, posteroanterior current (PA-TMS) and anteroposterior (AP-TMS) current would respectively depolarize neurons in the primary motor cortex (M1) and the premotor cortex. These regions may contribute differently to LES control. This study examined whether responses evoked by PA- and AP-TMS are different during the preparation and execution of LES voluntary and postural tasks.Participants performed a reaction time task. A Warning signal indicated to prepare to flex shoulders (postural, n=15) or to tilt the pelvis (voluntary, n=13) at the Go signal. Single- and paired-pulse TMS (short-interval intracortical inhibition - SICI) were applied using PA- and AP-TMS before the Warning signal (baseline), between the Warning and Go signals (preparation) or 30 ms before the LES onset (execution). Changes from baseline during preparation and execution were calculated in AP/PA-TMS.In the postural task, MEP amplitude was higher during the execution than preparation independently of the current direction (p=0.0002). In the voluntary task, AP-MEP amplitude was higher during execution than preparation (p=0.016). More PA-inhibition (SICI) was observed in execution than in preparation (p=0.028).Different neural circuits are preferentially involved in the two motor tasks assessed, as suggested by different patterns of change in execution of the voluntary task (AP-TMS: increase; PA-TMS: no change). Considering that PA-TMS preferentiallydepolarize neurons in M1,it questions their importance in LES voluntary control.Significance StatementBack muscles fulfill different roles as postural and control involving different neuronal circuits. Manipulating the electrical current direction induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation may allow the examination of different neural circuits contributions to postural and voluntary control of back muscles. In the execution of a postural task, corticospinal excitability was higher for both current directions than preparation. In the voluntary task, the corticospinal excitability was higher during execution than preparation using anteroposterior current only. Neural circuits contribution to back muscles control may depend on their role in the task performed. Our results suggest a minimal involvement of motor cortex neurons (minimally those interacting with posteroanterior current) in voluntary control of back muscles.

show abstract

Effect of Phasic Experimental Pain Applied during Motor Preparation or Execution on Motor Performance and Adaptation in a Reaching Task: A Randomized Trial

Badr,

Gagné-Pelletier,

Massé-Alarie

et al. 2024

Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Musculoskeletal conditions often involve pain related to specific movements. However, most studies on the impact of experimental pain on motor performance and learning have used tonic pain models. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of experimental phasic pain during the preparation or execution of a reaching task on the acquisition and retention of sensorimotor adaptation. Participants were divided into three groups: no pain, pain during motor preparation, and pain during motor execution. Pain was induced over the scapula with a laser while participants performed a force field adaptation task over two days. To assess the effect of pain on motor performance, two baseline conditions (with or without pain) involving unperturbed pointing movements were also conducted. The results indicated that the timing of the nociceptive stimulus differently affected baseline movement performance. Pain during motor preparation shortened reaction time, while pain during movement execution decreased task performance. However, when these baseline effects were accounted for, no impact of pain on motor adaptation or retention was observed. All groups showed significant improvements in all motor variables for both adaptation and retention. In conclusion, while acute phasic pain during motor preparation or execution can affect the movement itself, it does not interfere with motor acquisition or retention during a motor adaptation task.

show abstract

Effects of different modalities of afferent stimuli of the lumbo‐sacral area on control of lumbar paravertebral muscles

Cited by 3 publications

References 82 publications

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Corticomotor control of lumbar erector spinae in postural and voluntary tasks: the influence of transcranial magnetic stimulation current direction

Effect of Phasic Experimental Pain Applied during Motor Preparation or Execution on Motor Performance and Adaptation in a Reaching Task: A Randomized Trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About