Corticomotor Control of Lumbar Erector Spinae in Postural and Voluntary Tasks: The Influence of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Current Direction.

Lumbar erector spinae (LES) contribute to spine postural and voluntary control. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) preferentially depolarizes different neural circuits depending on the direction of electrical currents evoked in the brain. Posteroanterior current (PA-TMS) and anteroposterior (AP-TMS) current would, respectively, depolarize neurons in the primary motor cortex (M1) and the premotor cortex. These regions may contribute differently to LES control. This study examined whether responses evoked by PA- and AP-TMS are different during the preparation and execution of LES voluntary and postural tasks. Participants performed a reaction time task. A Warning signal indicated to prepare to flex shoulders (postural; n = 15) or to tilt the pelvis (voluntary; n = 13) at the Go signal. Single- and paired-pulse TMS (short-interval intracortical inhibition-SICI) were applied using PA- and AP-TMS before the Warning signal (baseline), between the Warning and Go signals (preparation), or 30 ms before the LES onset (execution). Changes from baseline during preparation and execution were calculated in AP/PA-TMS. In the postural task, MEP amplitude was higher during the execution than that during preparation independently of the current direction (p = 0.0002). In the voluntary task, AP-MEP amplitude was higher during execution than that during preparation (p = 0.016). More PA inhibition (SICI) was observed in execution than that in preparation (p = 0.028). Different neural circuits are preferentially involved in the two motor tasks assessed, as suggested by different patterns of change in execution of the voluntary task (AP-TMS, increase; PA-TMS, no change). Considering that PA-TMS preferentially depolarize neurons in M1, it questions their importance in LES voluntary control.

The influence of experimental low back pain on neural networks involved in the control of lumbar erector spinae muscles.

Low back pain (LBP) often modifies spine motor control, but the neural origin of these motor control changes remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to determine the impact of experimental low back pain on the excitability of cortical, subcortical, and spinal networks involved in the control of back muscles. Thirty healthy subjects were recruited and allocated to pain (capsaicin and heat) or control (heat) groups. Corticospinal excitability (motor-evoked potential; MEP) and intracortical networks were assessed by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, respectively. Electrical vestibular stimulation was applied to assess vestibulospinal excitability (vestibular MEP; VMEP) and the stretch reflex for excitability of the spinal or supraspinal loop (R1 and R2, respectively). Evoked back motor responses were measured before, during, and after pain induction. Nonparametric rank-based ANOVA determined if pain modulated motor neural networks. A decrease of R1 amplitude was present after the pain disappearance (P = 0.01) whereas an increase was observed in the control group (P = 0.03) compared with the R1 amplitude measured at prepain and preheat period, respectively (group × time interaction, P < 0.001). No difference in MEP and VMEP amplitude was present during and after pain (P > 0.05). During experimental LBP, no change in cortical, subcortical, or spinal networks was observed. After pain disappearance, the reduction of the R1 amplitude without modification of MEP and VMEP amplitude suggests a reduction in spinal excitability potentially combined with an increase in descending drives. The absence of effect during pain needs to be further explored.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In the presence of experimental low back pain, spinal, subcortical, and cortical motor networks involved in the control of back muscles were not modified. However, once the pain disappeared, a reduction in motoneuronal excitability was observed without change in corticospinal and vestibulospinal excitability, suggesting a reduction in descending drive. Experimental low back pain may elicit long-term plasticity even after pain extinction.

Influence of different transcranial magnetic stimulation current directions on the corticomotor control of lumbar erector spinae muscles during a static task.

Different directions of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can activate different neuronal circuits. Whereas posteroanterior current (PA-TMS) depolarizes mainly interneurons in primary motor cortex (M1), an anteroposterior current (AP-TMS) has been suggested to activate different M1 circuits and perhaps axons from the premotor regions. Although M1 is also involved in the control of axial muscles, no study has explored whether different current directions activate different M1 circuits that may have distinct functional roles. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of different current directions (PA- and AP-TMS) on the corticomotor control and spatial cortical organization of the lumbar erector spinae muscle (LES). Thirty-four healthy participants were recruited for two independent experiments, and LES motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded. In experiment 1 (n = 17), active motor threshold (AMT), MEP latencies, recruitment curve (90% to 160% AMT), and excitatory and inhibitory intracortical mechanisms by paired-pulse TMS (80% followed by 120% AMT stimuli at 2-, 3-, 10-, and 15-ms interstimulus intervals) were tested with a double-cone (n = 12) and a figure-of-eight (n = 5) coil. In experiment 2 (n = 17), LES cortical representations were tested with PA- and AP-TMS. AMT was higher for AP- compared with PA-TMS (P = 0.002). Longer latencies with AP-TMS were present compared with PA-TMS (P = 0.017). AP-TMS produced more inhibition compared with PA-TMS at 2 ms and 3 ms (P = 0.010), but no difference was observed for longer intervals. No difference was found for recruitment curve and mapping. These findings suggest that PA- and AP-TMS may activate different cortical circuits controlling low back muscles, as proposed for hand muscles.NEW & NOTEWORTHY For the first time, anteroposterior and posteroanterior induced electric currents in the brain were compared when targeting back muscle representation with transcranial magnetic stimulation. The use of the anteroposterior current resulted in later response latency, larger inhibition probed by paired-pulse stimulation, and higher motor threshold. These important differences between current directions suggest that each of the current directions may recruit specific cortical circuits involved in the control of back muscles, similar to that for hand muscles.

The Effect of Noninvasive Brain Stimulation to Reduce Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review/meta-analysis to evaluate noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) efficacy to alleviate pain and improve disability in low back pain (LBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed by a librarian in MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases (last search: January 14, 2021). Data were pooled by the number of sessions and follow-up periods. Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias. Pain reduction and disability were used as outcomes. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 8 in the meta-analysis. A single session of NIBS reduced pain compared with sham (standardized mean difference: -0.47; P<0.001; very low-quality evidence). Repeated sessions of NIBS did not impact pain at short-term (mean difference [MD]: -0.31; P=0.23) or midterm (MD: -0.56; P=0.33; moderate quality evidence). Combining NIBS with cointerventions did not influence pain (MD: -0.31; P=0.30; moderate quality evidence). NIBS did not have a statistically significant impact on disability. DISCUSSION: There is very low-quality evidence suggesting that a single NIBS session reduces LBP intensity. In contrast, there is moderate quality evidence that repeated NIBS sessions or combination with cointervention did not improve pain or disability. Thus, current results do not support NIBS use to treat chronic LBP. Considering that tDCS was tested in 8 of 12 studies with little success, studies focusing on different NIBS techniques or innovative parameters are required to determine their potential to improve pain and disability in chronic LBP.

The effect of experimental pain on the excitability of the corticospinal tract in humans: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pain influences motor control. Previous reviews observed that pain reduces the excitability of corticospinal projections to muscles tested with transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, the independent effect of the type of pain models (tonic, phasic), pain location and tissues targeted (e.g. muscle, skin) remains unexplored. The objective of this review was to determine the influence of experimental pain and of different methodological factors on the corticospinal excitability. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Three electronic databases were searched: Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted in three consecutive steps to reduce methodological variability: (a) all studies; (b) same pain location; (c) same tissues, pain location and muscle state. Strength of evidence was assessed for each analysis performed. RESULTS: Forty studies were included in the review and 26 in the meta-analysis as it focused only on studies using tonic pain. Overall, there was conflicting/moderate evidence of a diminution of corticospinal excitability during and after tonic pain. When considering only pain location, tonic hand and face pain induced a reduction in corticospinal excitability (limited evidence). Both muscle and cutaneous hand pain reduced corticospinal excitability (limited/conflicting evidence). Similar results were observed for phasic pain (limited evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the inhibitory effect of pain on corticospinal excitability for both tonic and phasic pain. This reduction was specific to hand and face pain. Also, both cutaneous and muscle hand pain reduced excitability. The strength of evidence remains limited/conflicting. More high-quality studies are needed to confirm our conclusions. SIGNIFICANCE: This study adds evidence on the effect of specific factors on the modulation of corticospinal excitability during/after experimental pain. The reduction in corticospinal excitability was driven by hand and face pain. We confirmed previous results that muscle pain reduces corticospinal excitability and provided evidence of a similar effect for cutaneous pain. Both models may inform on the influence of different types of pain on motor control. Future studies are needed to determine the origin of the effect of pain.