Recovery of motor performance deterioration induced by a demanding finger motor task does not follow cortical excitability dynamics

The performance of a demanding exercise can result in motor performance deterioration and depression of primary motor cortex excitability. In the present work we defined a motor task that requires measurable skilled performance to unveil motor performance changes during the execution of a demanding task and to investigate the dynamics of motor performance and cortical excitability changes in absence of overt peripheral fatigue. Twenty-one normal subjects, divided into three groups were asked to perform a sequence of finger opposition movements (SEQ) paced at 2 Hz for 5 min, quantitatively evaluated by means of a sensor-engineered glove able to perform a spatio-temporal analysis of motor performance. Maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was evaluated before and after the motor task in group 1 while motor evoked potentials (MEP) were evaluated before and after the motor task in group 2 and 3. Group 1 and 2 performed the 5 min-SEQ while group 3 was asked to perform the 5 min-SEQ twice to assess the dynamics of motor performance and cortical excitability. As a result, we found that the execution of 5 min-SEQ induced motor performance deterioration associated with no change in MVC but a decrease in cortical excitability. We further found that the dynamics of cortical excitability and motor performance were different. In fact, a short rest period (i.e., period necessary to collect MEP) between the execution of two 5 min-SEQs was able to recover the motor performance but not the cortical excitability. Finally, no change in spinal excitability was observed. These findings suggest that although primary motor cortex seems to be mainly involved in motor performance deterioration during the execution of a demanding finger motor task, the recovery of motor performance does not follow cortical excitability dynamics.

[1]  Andrea Tacchino,et al.  Spontaneous movement tempo is influenced by observation of rhythmical actions , 2009, Brain Research Bulletin.

[2]  G. Aschersleben.  Temporal Control of Movements in Sensorimotor Synchronization , 2002, Brain and Cognition.

[3]  Gary W. Thickbroom,et al.  Differential changes in long-interval intracortical inhibition and silent period duration during fatiguing hand exercise , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[4]  H. Lüders,et al.  The supplementary sensorimotor area. An overview. , 1996, Advances in neurology.

[5]  Gary W. Thickbroom,et al.  Rapid slowing of maximal finger movement rate: fatigue of central motor control? , 2009, Experimental Brain Research.

[6]  M. Bove,et al.  Interaction between finger opposition movements and aftereffects of 1Hz-rTMS on ipsilateral motor cortex. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[7]  M. Bove,et al.  Cerebellar involvement in timing accuracy of rhythmic finger movements in essential tremor , 2009, The European journal of neuroscience.

[8]  Antonio Novellino,et al.  The effects of rate and sequence complexity on repetitive finger movements , 2007, Brain Research.

[9]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Direct demonstration of reduction of the output of the human motor cortex induced by a fatiguing muscle contraction , 2003, Experimental Brain Research.

[10]  J. Doyon,et al.  Reorganization and plasticity in the adult brain during learning of motor skills , 2005, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[11]  Patrick Ragert,et al.  Contribution of transcranial magnetic stimulation to the understanding of cortical mechanisms involved in motor control , 2008, The Journal of physiology.

[12]  Kurt Wiesenfeld,et al.  Neural correlates of the complexity of rhythmic finger tapping , 2003, NeuroImage.

[13]  Gabrielle Todd,et al.  EVIDENCE FOR A SUPRASPINAL CONTRIBUTION TO HUMAN MUSCLE FATIGUE , 2006, Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology.

[14]  A. Chaudhuri,et al.  Fatigue and basal ganglia , 2000, Journal of the Neurological Sciences.

[15]  M Hallett,et al.  Stimulation over the human supplementary motor area interferes with the organization of future elements in complex motor sequences. , 1997, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[16]  W. Meck.  Neuropsychology of timing and time perception , 2005, Brain and Cognition.

[17]  G. Zanette,et al.  Long-lasting depression of motor-evoked potentials to transcranial magnetic stimulation following exercise , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[18]  Andrea Tacchino,et al.  Callosal Contributions to Simultaneous Bimanual Finger Movements , 2008, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[19]  J P Malin,et al.  Central fatigue assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation , 1996, Muscle & nerve.

[20]  R. Ivry,et al.  The neural representation of time , 2004, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[21]  J. Rothwell,et al.  Muscle fatigue decreases short-interval intracortical inhibition after exhaustive intermittent tasks , 2006, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[22]  Hans Forssberg,et al.  Neural Control of Rhythmic Sequences , 2005, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[23]  M Hallett,et al.  Central fatigue as revealed by postexercise decrement of motor evoked potentials , 1994, Muscle & nerve.

[24]  S. Gandevia.  Spinal and supraspinal factors in human muscle fatigue. , 2001, Physiological reviews.

[25]  S. Gandevia.  INSIGHTS INTO MOTOR PERFORMANCE AND MUSCLE FATIGUE BASED ON TRANSCRANIAL STIMULATION OF THE HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX , 1996, Clinical and experimental pharmacology & physiology.

[26]  M. Latash,et al.  Fatigue and motor redundancy: adaptive increase in finger force variance in multi-finger tasks. , 2010, Journal of neurophysiology.

[27]  Mark Hallett,et al.  Postexercise depression of motor evoked potentials: a measure of central nervous system fatigue , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[28]  Laura Avanzino,et al.  1‐Hz repetitive TMS over ipsilateral motor cortex influences the performance of sequential finger movements of different complexity , 2008, The European journal of neuroscience.