The effect of intermittent theta burst stimulation applied to the primary motor cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex on running performance in endurance-trained runners
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Increasing cortical excitability has been studied to enhance athletic performance for over a decade, but its effectiveness remains unknown, particularly in endurance running.The current literature contains discrepancies regarding optimal parameters, including stimulation site, testing protocols and outcome measures.Few studies have investigated the effect of stimulating multiple sites to address the various factors that contribute to running performance.Historically, the motor cortex (M1) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) have been targeted due to their roles in both the physical and cognitive aspects of performance.For testing protocols, studies have examined the effects of increasing excitability using laboratory-based methods, such as time to exhaustion tests on cycle ergometers or treadmills, rather than overground running assessments that better reflect a natural environment for runners.Additionally, total time may not fully capture all aspects of performance that change throughout a run.Targeting multiple brain regions and utilizing an overground running task that evaluates multiple performance metrics throughout the run may provide greater insight into the effect of increasing excitability.Therefore, this thesis aims to investigate the impacts of increasing cortical excitability through intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) targeted to the M1, DLPFC, and both M1 and DLPFC compared to sham on total time, speed, rating of perceived exertion (RPE) and spatiotemporal parameters and variability in endurance-trained runners during an exhaustive 3,000m time-trial run.We hypothesized that iTBS applied to the M1 leg and DLPFC would enhance performance by measures of faster completion times, faster speeds, reduced RPE and decreased spatiotemporal variability.Ten endurance-trained runners (7 males, 3 females, age: 26 7 years, height: 1.75 0.92 m, body mass: 65 10 kg, years of training: 85) were included in the analysis.Runners underwent four separate sessions in randomized order: iTBS of both M1 and DLPFC, iTBS of M1 and sham stimulation of DLPFC, sham stimulation of M1 and iTBS of DLPFC, and sham stimulation of both M1 and DLPFC.After stimulation, runners performed the 3,000m time-trial run on an indoor track.RPE was taken every three laps.Spatiotemporal measures of stride time (ST), step frequency (SF), stride length (SL) and duty factor (DF) were collected through APDM opal sensors.Speed, magnitude of spatiotemporal parameters, and their coefficient of variation (CV) were analyzed in three phases of the run: initial, steady state and final acceleration.Although significance was not reached, the M1+DLPFC condition produced the fastest time, nearly 3 seconds faster than sham and 1 second faster than stimulation of either area alone.Speed was significantly faster in the
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».