Corticospinal excitability is dependent on the parameters of peripheral electric stimulation

a preliminary study

Lucy S Chipchase, Siobhan M Schabrun, Paul W Hodges

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 6 electric stimulation paradigms on corticospinal excitability.

DESIGN: Using a same subject pre-post test design, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure the responsiveness of corticomotor pathway to biceps and triceps brachii muscles before and after 30 minutes of electric stimulation over the biceps brachii. Six different electric stimulation paradigms were applied in random order, at least 3 days apart.

SETTING: Motor control research laboratory.

PARTICIPANTS: Healthy subjects (N=10; 5 women, 5 men; mean age ± SD, 26 ± 3.6y).

INTERVENTIONS: Six different electric stimulation paradigms with varied stimulus amplitude, frequency, and ramp settings.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Amplitudes of TMS-induced motor evoked potentials at biceps and triceps brachii normalized to maximal M-wave amplitudes.

RESULTS: Electric stimulation delivered at stimulus amplitude sufficient to evoke a sensory response at both 10 Hz and 100 Hz, and stimulus amplitude to create a noxious response at 10 Hz decreased corticomotor responsiveness (all P<0.01). Stimulation sufficient to induce a motor contraction (30 Hz) applied in a ramped pattern to mimic a voluntary activation increased corticomotor responsiveness (P=0.002), whereas constant low- and high-intensity motor stimulation at 10 Hz did not. Corticomotor excitability changes were similar for both the stimulated muscle and its antagonist.

CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus amplitude (intensity) and the nature (muscle flicker vs contraction) of motor stimulation have a significant impact on changes in corticospinal excitability induced by electric stimulation. Here, we demonstrate that peripheral electric stimulation at stimulus amplitude to create a sensory response reduces corticomotor responsiveness. Conversely, stimulus amplitude to create a motor response increases corticomotor responsiveness, but only the parameters that create a motor response that mimics a voluntary muscle contraction.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1423-30
Number of pages8
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume92
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Electric Stimulation
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation
Muscles
Motor Evoked Potentials
Architectural Accessibility
Muscle Contraction
Healthy Volunteers
Skeletal Muscle
Research

Cite this

@article{1f56f704f12e4cacb283c8b4287eff15,
title = "Corticospinal excitability is dependent on the parameters of peripheral electric stimulation: a preliminary study",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 6 electric stimulation paradigms on corticospinal excitability.DESIGN: Using a same subject pre-post test design, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure the responsiveness of corticomotor pathway to biceps and triceps brachii muscles before and after 30 minutes of electric stimulation over the biceps brachii. Six different electric stimulation paradigms were applied in random order, at least 3 days apart.SETTING: Motor control research laboratory.PARTICIPANTS: Healthy subjects (N=10; 5 women, 5 men; mean age ± SD, 26 ± 3.6y).INTERVENTIONS: Six different electric stimulation paradigms with varied stimulus amplitude, frequency, and ramp settings.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Amplitudes of TMS-induced motor evoked potentials at biceps and triceps brachii normalized to maximal M-wave amplitudes.RESULTS: Electric stimulation delivered at stimulus amplitude sufficient to evoke a sensory response at both 10 Hz and 100 Hz, and stimulus amplitude to create a noxious response at 10 Hz decreased corticomotor responsiveness (all P<0.01). Stimulation sufficient to induce a motor contraction (30 Hz) applied in a ramped pattern to mimic a voluntary activation increased corticomotor responsiveness (P=0.002), whereas constant low- and high-intensity motor stimulation at 10 Hz did not. Corticomotor excitability changes were similar for both the stimulated muscle and its antagonist.CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus amplitude (intensity) and the nature (muscle flicker vs contraction) of motor stimulation have a significant impact on changes in corticospinal excitability induced by electric stimulation. Here, we demonstrate that peripheral electric stimulation at stimulus amplitude to create a sensory response reduces corticomotor responsiveness. Conversely, stimulus amplitude to create a motor response increases corticomotor responsiveness, but only the parameters that create a motor response that mimics a voluntary muscle contraction.",
keywords = "Adult, Arm, Electric Stimulation Therapy, Electromyography, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Female, Humans, Male, Motor Cortex, Muscle Contraction, Muscle, Skeletal, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't",
author = "Chipchase, {Lucy S} and Schabrun, {Siobhan M} and Hodges, {Paul W}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2011 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2011",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.011",
language = "English",
volume = "92",
pages = "1423--30",
journal = "Archives of physical medicine",
issn = "0003-9993",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "9",

}

Corticospinal excitability is dependent on the parameters of peripheral electric stimulation : a preliminary study. / Chipchase, Lucy S; Schabrun, Siobhan M; Hodges, Paul W.

In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 92, No. 9, 09.2011, p. 1423-30.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corticospinal excitability is dependent on the parameters of peripheral electric stimulation

T2 - a preliminary study

AU - Chipchase, Lucy S

AU - Schabrun, Siobhan M

AU - Hodges, Paul W

N1 - Copyright © 2011 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2011/9

Y1 - 2011/9

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 6 electric stimulation paradigms on corticospinal excitability.DESIGN: Using a same subject pre-post test design, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure the responsiveness of corticomotor pathway to biceps and triceps brachii muscles before and after 30 minutes of electric stimulation over the biceps brachii. Six different electric stimulation paradigms were applied in random order, at least 3 days apart.SETTING: Motor control research laboratory.PARTICIPANTS: Healthy subjects (N=10; 5 women, 5 men; mean age ± SD, 26 ± 3.6y).INTERVENTIONS: Six different electric stimulation paradigms with varied stimulus amplitude, frequency, and ramp settings.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Amplitudes of TMS-induced motor evoked potentials at biceps and triceps brachii normalized to maximal M-wave amplitudes.RESULTS: Electric stimulation delivered at stimulus amplitude sufficient to evoke a sensory response at both 10 Hz and 100 Hz, and stimulus amplitude to create a noxious response at 10 Hz decreased corticomotor responsiveness (all P<0.01). Stimulation sufficient to induce a motor contraction (30 Hz) applied in a ramped pattern to mimic a voluntary activation increased corticomotor responsiveness (P=0.002), whereas constant low- and high-intensity motor stimulation at 10 Hz did not. Corticomotor excitability changes were similar for both the stimulated muscle and its antagonist.CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus amplitude (intensity) and the nature (muscle flicker vs contraction) of motor stimulation have a significant impact on changes in corticospinal excitability induced by electric stimulation. Here, we demonstrate that peripheral electric stimulation at stimulus amplitude to create a sensory response reduces corticomotor responsiveness. Conversely, stimulus amplitude to create a motor response increases corticomotor responsiveness, but only the parameters that create a motor response that mimics a voluntary muscle contraction.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 6 electric stimulation paradigms on corticospinal excitability.DESIGN: Using a same subject pre-post test design, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was used to measure the responsiveness of corticomotor pathway to biceps and triceps brachii muscles before and after 30 minutes of electric stimulation over the biceps brachii. Six different electric stimulation paradigms were applied in random order, at least 3 days apart.SETTING: Motor control research laboratory.PARTICIPANTS: Healthy subjects (N=10; 5 women, 5 men; mean age ± SD, 26 ± 3.6y).INTERVENTIONS: Six different electric stimulation paradigms with varied stimulus amplitude, frequency, and ramp settings.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Amplitudes of TMS-induced motor evoked potentials at biceps and triceps brachii normalized to maximal M-wave amplitudes.RESULTS: Electric stimulation delivered at stimulus amplitude sufficient to evoke a sensory response at both 10 Hz and 100 Hz, and stimulus amplitude to create a noxious response at 10 Hz decreased corticomotor responsiveness (all P<0.01). Stimulation sufficient to induce a motor contraction (30 Hz) applied in a ramped pattern to mimic a voluntary activation increased corticomotor responsiveness (P=0.002), whereas constant low- and high-intensity motor stimulation at 10 Hz did not. Corticomotor excitability changes were similar for both the stimulated muscle and its antagonist.CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus amplitude (intensity) and the nature (muscle flicker vs contraction) of motor stimulation have a significant impact on changes in corticospinal excitability induced by electric stimulation. Here, we demonstrate that peripheral electric stimulation at stimulus amplitude to create a sensory response reduces corticomotor responsiveness. Conversely, stimulus amplitude to create a motor response increases corticomotor responsiveness, but only the parameters that create a motor response that mimics a voluntary muscle contraction.

KW - Adult

KW - Arm

KW - Electric Stimulation Therapy

KW - Electromyography

KW - Evoked Potentials, Motor

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Male

KW - Motor Cortex

KW - Muscle Contraction

KW - Muscle, Skeletal

KW - Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

KW - Journal Article

KW - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.011

DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.011

M3 - Article

VL - 92

SP - 1423

EP - 1430

JO - Archives of physical medicine

JF - Archives of physical medicine

SN - 0003-9993

IS - 9

ER -