MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of Maximal and Submaximal Muscle Activation on Corticospinal Excitability in Humans

2022· article· en· W4225374303 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander D. Paish, Alexander M. Zero, Charles L. Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNeuroscienceChemistryMedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Following short duration (5‐10s), high intensity (≥70%MVC) muscle activation, there is an enhancement of muscle contractile properties, termed post action potentiation (PAP). During PAP induced by voluntary or electrically stimulated conditioning contractions (CC) it has been reported that the corticospinal silent period (SP), assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), is elongated. Although a coexistence between the two occurs, the direct effect of PAP on corticospinal excitability has not been systematically evaluated to help determine whether a direct link exists. The purpose was to assess SP duration following potentiating and non‐potentiating voluntary and electrically stimulated contractions. We hypothesized that maximal and submaximal CCs inducing PAP and those not inducing PAP enhancement, respectively, will prolong SP durations albeit to a lesser degree at submaximal intensities. Methods Ten healthy young (three females; 18‐35y) individuals free of neurological issues to date have participated in the study. Subjects were seated with their right forearm pronated and their hand was fixed to a custom finger abduction force dynamometer. Monopolar surface electromyography signals were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI) with self‐adhering Ag/AgCl electrodes. Peripheral stimulated twitches and tetani (50Hz) were evoked over the ulnar nerve at the wrist via a pair of small readjustable electrodes. Maximal M‐waves (M‐max) and baseline levels of (voluntary and stimulated) PAP and force were obtained for each subject. Electrically stimulated and voluntarily induced CCs of 10s were performed at ~95% MVC and ~35% MVC for a total of four contraction conditions. Before and after these contractions SP times were obtained during the plateau of ~25% MVC held for three seconds. To obtain SP times the TMS output was set to elicit a response ~75% of M‐max. The four conditions of voluntary or stimulated, maximal and submaximal CCs were pseudo‐randomized and repeated four times per subject. The nearest three values from each subject were averaged and compared as a normalized percent change from baseline. Results Following both maximal voluntary and stimulated CCs, mean twitch torque was enhanced similarly (PAP ~180%) with no PAP at the submaximal levels. Mean change in SP duration following maximal voluntary CCs was ~14% longer than control values, while maximal tetanic CCs similarly prolonged the SP by ~13%. Both voluntary and stimulated submaximal contractions prolonged SP duration similarly by ~5% and ~6%, respectively. Conclusion These findings indicate that corticospinal inhibition assessed as SP elongation is present not only when the muscle is enhanced under PAP but also occurs following contractions inducing no PAP. This suggests that the muscle activation required to induce PAP likely causes the observed corticospinal inhibition, not the enhanced muscle properties of PAP per se.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNeurological disorders and treatments→French-language works237,207→