Task‐dependent facilitation of motor evoked potentials during dynamic and steady muscle contractions

Task‐dependent differences in the facilitation of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) following cortex stimulation were studied in a proximal (deltoid) and a distal muscle (abductor digiti minimi; ADM) in 23 healthy subjects during both dynamic and steady contractions of the target muscle under isometric and under nonisometric conditions. In the deltoid, MEP amplitudes were significantly greater if stimulation was performed during dynamic contractions than during steady contractions, despite equal background electromyographic levels just prior to the stimulus. The same task‐specific extra facilitation of deltoid MEP amplitudes was also found with magnetic stimulation of the brain stem instead of the cortex in 3 subjects. In the ADM, no such task‐dependent extra facilitation of MEPs during dynamic contractions was found. It is concluded that in the deltoid, during dynamic contractions, a greater proportion of the spinal motoneurons is close to depolarization threshold (greater “subliminal fringe”) whereas the number of firing motoneurons is similar to that during steady contraction. The lack of task‐dependent extra facilitation of MEPs in the ADM is explained by the predominant recruitment principle for force gradation in small hand muscles, which is in contrast to the predominant frequency principle used in proximal muscles. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Muscle Nerve 21:1309–1316, 1998.

[1]  V. Gurfinkel,et al.  Facilitation of motor evoked potentials by postcontraction response (Kohnstamm phenomenon). , 1996, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[2]  P. Guiheneuc,et al.  Facilitation of motor evoked potentials: Timing of jendrassik maneuver effects , 1995, Muscle & nerve.

[3]  R. Johansson,et al.  Corticospinal control during reach, grasp, and precision lift in man , 1995, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[4]  G. Rizzolatti,et al.  Motor facilitation during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. , 1995, Journal of neurophysiology.

[5]  J. Nielsen,et al.  Changes in the effect of magnetic brain stimulation accompanying voluntary dynamic contraction in man. , 1995, The Journal of physiology.

[6]  N. Chino,et al.  Facilitatory effect of thinking about movement on motor-evoked potentials to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain , 1995 .

[7]  M Schieppati,et al.  Response of arm flexor muscles to magnetic and electrical brain stimulation during shortening and lengthening tasks in man. , 1994, The Journal of physiology.

[8]  M Crawford,et al.  Transcranial electrical stimulation of the motor cortex in man: further evidence for the site of activation. , 1994, The Journal of physiology.

[9]  R. Hanajima,et al.  Magnetic stimulation of corticospinal pathways at the foramen magnum level in humans , 1994, Annals of neurology.

[10]  U. Kischka,et al.  Facilitation of motor evoked potentials from magnetic brain stimulation in man: a comparative study of different target muscles. , 1993, Journal of clinical neurophysiology : official publication of the American Electroencephalographic Society.

[11]  R N Lemon,et al.  Task dependence of responses in first dorsal interosseous muscle to magnetic brain stimulation in man. , 1993, The Journal of physiology.

[12]  W F Brown,et al.  Influence of peripheral afferents on cortical and spinal motoneuron excitability , 1992, Muscle & nerve.

[13]  J C Rothwell,et al.  Further observations on the facilitation of muscle responses to cortical stimulation by voluntary contraction. , 1991, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[14]  J C Rothwell,et al.  Changes in the response to magnetic and electrical stimulation of the motor cortex following muscle stretch in man. , 1991, The Journal of physiology.

[15]  A. Berardelli,et al.  Motor potentials evoked by paired cortical stimuli. , 1990, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[16]  Daniel Kernell,et al.  Synaptic effects on recruitment gain: a mechanism of importance for the input-output relations of motoneurone pools? , 1990, Brain Research.

[17]  L M Harrison,et al.  Task‐dependent changes in the size of response to magnetic brain stimulation in human first dorsal interosseous muscle. , 1989, The Journal of physiology.

[18]  R. Heckmann,et al.  Significance of shape and size of the stimulating coil in magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex , 1989, Neuroscience Letters.

[19]  K. Mills,et al.  The influence of vibration on the excitability of alpha motoneurones. , 1988, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[20]  P. Thompson,et al.  Motor cortex stimulation in intact man. 1. General characteristics of EMG responses in different muscles. , 1987, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[21]  K. Mills,et al.  Responses in small hand muscles from magnetic stimulation of the human brain. , 1987, The Journal of physiology.

[22]  C. W. Hess,et al.  Magnetic stimulation of the human brain: Facilitation of motor responses by voluntary contraction of ipsilateral and contralateral muscles with additional observations on an amputee , 1986, Neuroscience Letters.

[23]  R. Stein,et al.  Motor-unit recruitment in human first dorsal interosseous muscle for static contractions in three different directions. , 1986, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  P. Matthews Observations on the automatic compensation of reflex gain on varying the pre‐existing level of motor discharge in man. , 1986, The Journal of physiology.

[25]  A. Barker,et al.  NON-INVASIVE MAGNETIC STIMULATION OF HUMAN MOTOR CORTEX , 1985, The Lancet.

[26]  G. Loeb Motoneurone task groups: coping with kinematic heterogeneity. , 1985, The Journal of experimental biology.

[27]  H. Clamann,et al.  Elsevier/North-Holland Biomedical Press COMPARISON OF THE RECRUITMENT AND DISCHARGE PROPERTIES OF MOTOR UNITS IN H U M A N BRACHIAL BICEPS AND A D D U C T O R POLLICIS D U R I N G ISOMETRIC CONTRACTIONS , 2018 .

[28]  G. Somjen,et al.  Excitability and inhibitability of motoneurons of different sizes. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[29]  G. Somjen,et al.  FUNCTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CELL SIZE IN SPINAL MOTONEURONS. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

[30]  E. Henneman Relation between size of neurons and their susceptibility to discharge. , 1957, Science.

[31]  C. Sherrington,et al.  Subliminal fringe in spinal flexion , 1928, The Journal of physiology.

[32]  H P Clamann,et al.  Force output of cat motor units stimulated with trains of linearly varying frequency. , 1989, Journal of neurophysiology.

[33]  J Perry,et al.  EMG-force relationships in skeletal muscle. , 1981, Critical reviews in biomedical engineering.

[34]  C. G. Phillips,et al.  THE PYRAMIDAL PROJECTION TO MOTONEURONES OF SOME MUSCLE GROUPS OF THE BABOON'S FORELIMB. , 1964, Progress in brain research.