Cargando…

In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific

Reductions in the base of support (BOS) make standing difficult and require adjustments in the neural control of sway. In healthy young adults, we determined the effects of reductions in mediolateral (ML) BOS on peroneus longus (PL) motor evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), sho...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nandi, Tulika, Lamoth, Claudine J. C., van Keeken, Helco G., Bakker, Lisanne B. M., Kok, Iris, Salem, George J., Fisher, Beth E., Hortobágyi, Tibor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00303
_version_ 1783344864306397184
author Nandi, Tulika
Lamoth, Claudine J. C.
van Keeken, Helco G.
Bakker, Lisanne B. M.
Kok, Iris
Salem, George J.
Fisher, Beth E.
Hortobágyi, Tibor
author_facet Nandi, Tulika
Lamoth, Claudine J. C.
van Keeken, Helco G.
Bakker, Lisanne B. M.
Kok, Iris
Salem, George J.
Fisher, Beth E.
Hortobágyi, Tibor
author_sort Nandi, Tulika
collection PubMed
description Reductions in the base of support (BOS) make standing difficult and require adjustments in the neural control of sway. In healthy young adults, we determined the effects of reductions in mediolateral (ML) BOS on peroneus longus (PL) motor evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and long interval intracortical inhibition (LICI) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We also examined whether participant-specific neural excitability influences the responses to increasing standing difficulty. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that with increasing standing difficulty MEP size increased, SICI decreased (both p < 0.05) and ICF trended to decrease (p = 0.07). LICI decreased only in a sub-set of participants, demonstrating atypical facilitation. Spearman’s Rank Correlation showed a relationship of ρ = 0.50 (p = 0.001) between MEP size and ML center of pressure (COP) velocity. Measures of M1 excitability did not correlate with COP velocity. LICI and ICF measured in the control task correlated with changes in LICI and ICF, i.e., the magnitude of response to increasing standing difficulty. Therefore, corticospinal excitability as measured by MEP size contributes to ML sway control while cortical facilitation and inhibition are likely involved in other aspects of sway control while standing. Additionally, neural excitability in standing is determined by an interaction between task difficulty and participant-specific neural excitability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6077221
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60772212018-08-13 In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific Nandi, Tulika Lamoth, Claudine J. C. van Keeken, Helco G. Bakker, Lisanne B. M. Kok, Iris Salem, George J. Fisher, Beth E. Hortobágyi, Tibor Front Hum Neurosci Neuroscience Reductions in the base of support (BOS) make standing difficult and require adjustments in the neural control of sway. In healthy young adults, we determined the effects of reductions in mediolateral (ML) BOS on peroneus longus (PL) motor evoked potential (MEP), intracortical facilitation (ICF), short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) and long interval intracortical inhibition (LICI) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). We also examined whether participant-specific neural excitability influences the responses to increasing standing difficulty. Repeated measures ANOVA revealed that with increasing standing difficulty MEP size increased, SICI decreased (both p < 0.05) and ICF trended to decrease (p = 0.07). LICI decreased only in a sub-set of participants, demonstrating atypical facilitation. Spearman’s Rank Correlation showed a relationship of ρ = 0.50 (p = 0.001) between MEP size and ML center of pressure (COP) velocity. Measures of M1 excitability did not correlate with COP velocity. LICI and ICF measured in the control task correlated with changes in LICI and ICF, i.e., the magnitude of response to increasing standing difficulty. Therefore, corticospinal excitability as measured by MEP size contributes to ML sway control while cortical facilitation and inhibition are likely involved in other aspects of sway control while standing. Additionally, neural excitability in standing is determined by an interaction between task difficulty and participant-specific neural excitability. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6077221/ /pubmed/30104968 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00303 Text en Copyright © 2018 Nandi, Lamoth, van Keeken, Bakker, Kok, Salem, Fisher and Hortobágyi. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Nandi, Tulika
Lamoth, Claudine J. C.
van Keeken, Helco G.
Bakker, Lisanne B. M.
Kok, Iris
Salem, George J.
Fisher, Beth E.
Hortobágyi, Tibor
In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title_full In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title_fullStr In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title_full_unstemmed In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title_short In Standing, Corticospinal Excitability Is Proportional to COP Velocity Whereas M1 Excitability Is Participant-Specific
title_sort in standing, corticospinal excitability is proportional to cop velocity whereas m1 excitability is participant-specific
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6077221/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30104968
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00303
work_keys_str_mv AT nanditulika instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT lamothclaudinejc instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT vankeekenhelcog instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT bakkerlisannebm instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT kokiris instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT salemgeorgej instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT fisherbethe instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific
AT hortobagyitibor instandingcorticospinalexcitabilityisproportionaltocopvelocitywhereasm1excitabilityisparticipantspecific