Electrical Stimulation of Back Muscles Does Not Prime the Corticospinal Pathway.
Fine-wire electromyography
intracortical excitability
multifidus muscle
paired-pulse TMS
peripheral electric stimulation
Journal
Neuromodulation : journal of the International Neuromodulation Society
ISSN: 1525-1403
Titre abrégé: Neuromodulation
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9804159
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2019
Jul 2019
Historique:
received:
19
06
2018
revised:
03
05
2019
accepted:
06
05
2019
pubmed:
25
6
2019
medline:
14
1
2020
entrez:
25
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate whether peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) of back extensor muscles changes excitability of the corticospinal pathway of the stimulated muscle and synergist trunk muscles. In 12 volunteers with no history of low back pain (LBP), intramuscular fine-wire electrodes recorded electromyography (EMG) from the deep multifidus (DM) and longissimus muscles. Surface electrodes recorded general EMG from the erector spinae and abdominal muscles. Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms tested corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI-2 and 3 ms), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) optimized for recordings of DM. Active motor threshold (aMT) to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) in DM was determined and stimulation was applied at 120% of this intensity. PES was provided via electrodes placed over the right multifidus. The effect of 20-min PES (ramped motor activation) was studied. Mean aMT for DM was 42.7 ± 10% of the maximal stimulator output. No effects of PES were found on MEP amplitude (single-pulse TMS) for any trunk muscles examined. There was no evidence for changes in SICI or ICF; that is, conditioned MEP amplitude was not different between trials after PES. Results indicate that, unlike previous reports that show increased corticospinal excitability of limb muscles, PES of back muscles does not modify the corticospinal excitability. This difference in response of the motor pathway of back muscles to PES might be explained by the lesser importance of voluntary cortical drive to these muscles and the greater role of postural networks. Whether PES influences back muscle training remains unclear, yet the present results suggest that potential effects are unlikely to be explained by the effects of PES at corticospinal level with the parameters used in this study.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31232503
doi: 10.1111/ner.12978
pii: S1094-7159(21)01979-6
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
555-563Subventions
Organisme : Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica
ID : 72140398
Organisme : Canadian Institutes of Health Research
ID : #358797
Pays : Canada
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
ID : APP1091302
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
ID : APP1102905
Organisme : National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia
ID : APP1105040
Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Neuromodulation Society.