Search

Motor learning relies on experience-dependent plasticity in relevant neural circuits. In four experiments, we provide initial evidence and a double-blinded, sham-controlled replication (Experiment I-II) demonstrating that motor learning involving ballistic index finger movements is improved by preceding paired corticospinal-motoneuronal stimulation (PCMS), a human model for exogenous induction of spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Behavioral effects of PCMS targeting corticomotoneuronal (CM) synapses are order- and timing-specific and partially bidirectional (Experiment III). PCMS with a 2 ms inter-arrival interval at CM-synapses enhances learning and increases corticospinal excitability compared to control protocols. Unpaired stimulations did not increase corticospinal excitability (Experiment IV). Our findings demonstrate that non-invasively induced plasticity interacts positively with experience-dependent plasticity to promote motor learning. The effects of PCMS on motor learning approximate Hebbian learning rules, while the effects on corticospinal excitability demonstrate timing-specificity but not bidirectionality. These findings offer a mechanistic rationale to enhance motor practice effects by priming sensorimotor training with individualized PCMS. Whether paired corticospinal-motoneuronal stimulation (PCMS)-protocols can promote motor learning and how PCMS protocols interact with mechanisms of experience-dependent plasticity is not fully understood. Here authors show that non-invasively induced plasticity targeting corticomotoneuronal synapses promotes motor learning by interacting positively with experience-dependent plasticity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In resistance training, periodization is often used in an attempt to promote development of strength and muscle hypertrophy. However, it remains unclear how resistance training variables are most effectively periodized to maximize gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. Objective: The aims of this study were to examine the current body of literature to determine whether there is an effect of periodization of training volume and intensity on maximal strength and muscle hypertrophy, and, if so, to determine how these variables are more effectively periodized to promote increases in strength and muscle hypertrophy, when volume is equated between conditions from pre to post intervention. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus databases. Data from the individual studies were extracted and coded. Meta-analyses using the inverse-variance random effects model were performed to compare 1-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscle hypertrophy outcomes in (a) non-periodized (NP) versus periodized training and (b) in linear periodization (LP) versus undulating periodization (UP). Subgroup analyses examining whether results were affected by training status were performed. Meta-analyses of other periodization model comparisons were not performed, due to a low number of studies. Results: Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Results of the meta-analyses comparing NP and periodized training demonstrated an overall effect on 1RM strength favoring periodized training (ES 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.04, 0.57]; Z = 2.28, P = 0.02). In contrast, muscle hypertrophy did not differ between NP and periodized training (ES 0.13, 95% CI [–0.10, 0.36]; Z = 1.10, P = 0.27). Results of the meta-analyses comparing LP and UP indicated an overall effect on 1RM favoring UP (ES 0.31, 95% CI [0.02, 0.61]; Z = 2.06, P = 0.04). Subgroup analyses indicated an effect on 1RM favoring UP in trained participants (ES 0.61, 95% CI [0.00, 1.22]; Z = 1.97 (P = 0.05)), whereas changes in 1RM did not differ between LP and UP in untrained participants (ES 0.06, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.31]; Z = 0.43 (P = 0.67)). The meta-analyses showed that muscle hypertrophy did not differ between LP and UP (ES 0.05, 95% CI [–0.20, 0.29]; Z = 0.36 (P = 0.72)). Conclusion: The results suggest that when volume is equated between conditions, periodized resistance training has a greater effect on 1RM strength compared to NP resistance training. Also, UP resulted in greater increases in 1RM compared to LP. However, subgroup analyses revealed that this was only the case for trained and not previously untrained individuals, indicating that trained individuals benefit from daily or weekly undulations in volume and intensity, when the aim is maximal strength. Periodization of volume and intensity does not seem to affect muscle hypertrophy in volume-equated pre-post designs. Based on this, we propose that the effects of periodization on maximal strength may instead be related to the neurophysiological adaptations accompanying resistance training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spinal DC stimulation (tsDCS) shows promise as a technique for the facilitation of functional recovery of motor function following central nervous system (CNS) lesion. However, the network mechanisms that are responsible for the effects of tsDCS are still uncertain. Here, in a series of experiments, we tested the hypothesis that tsDCS increases the excitability of the long-latency stretch reflex, leading to increased excitability of corticospinal neurons in the primary motor cortex. Experiments were performed in 33 adult human subjects (mean age 28 ± 7 years/14 females). Subjects were seated in a reclining armchair with the right leg attached to a footplate, which could be quickly plantarflexed (100 deg/s; 6 deg amplitude) to induce stretch reflexes in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle at short (45 ms) and longer latencies (90–95 ms). This setup also enabled measuring motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and cervicomedullary evoked potentials (cMEPs) from TA evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and electrical stimulation at the cervical junction, respectively. Cathodal tsDCS at 2.5 and 4 mA was found to increase the long-latency reflex without any significant effect on the short-latency reflex. Furthermore, TA MEPs, but not cMEPs, were increased following tsDCS. We conclude that cathodal tsDCS over lumbar segments may facilitate proprioceptive transcortical reflexes in the TA muscle, and we suggest that the most likely explanation of this facilitation is an effect on ascending fibers in the dorsal columns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does the neural control of fine movements develop from childhood to adulthood? Here, we investigated developmental differences in functional corticomuscular connectivity using coherence analyses in 111 individuals from four different age groups covering the age range 8–30 y. EEG and EMG were recorded while participants performed a uni-manual force-tracing task requiring fine control of force in a precision grip with both the dominant and non-dominant hand. Using beamforming methods, we located and reconstructed source activity from EEG data displaying peak coherence with the EMG activity of an intrinsic hand muscle during the task. Coherent cortical sources were found anterior and posterior to the central sulcus in the contralateral hemisphere. Undirected and directed corticomuscular coherence was quantified and compared between age groups. Our results revealed that coherence was greater in adults (20–30 yo) than in children (8–10 yo) and that this difference was driven by greater magnitudes of descending (cortex-to-muscle), rather than ascending (muscle-to-cortex), coherence. We speculate that the age-related differences reflect maturation of corticomuscular networks leading to increased functional connectivity with age. We interpret the greater magnitude of descending oscillatory coupling as reflecting a greater degree of feedforward control in adults compared to children. The findings provide a detailed characterization of differences in functional sensorimotor connectivity for individuals at different stages of typical ontogenetic development that may be related to the maturational refinement of dexterous motor control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]