Short-interval intracortical inhibition to the biceps brachii is present during arm cycling but is not different than a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction.

We have previously shown that supraspinal excitability is higher during arm cycling than a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction. The present study sought to determine if short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) was present during arm cycling and if so, if the amount of SICI was different from an intensity-matched tonic contraction. SICI was assessed using conditioning stimuli (CS) of 70 and 90% of active motor threshold (AMT) and a test stimulus (TS) of 120% AMT at an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 2.5 ms. SICI was elicited in all participants; on average (i.e., cycling and tonic contraction grouped) test MEP amplitudes were reduced by 64.2% (p < 0.001) and 62.8% (p = 0.001) following conditioning stimuli of 70% and 90% AMT, respectively. There was no significant difference in extent of SICI between tasks (p = 0.360). These data represent the novel finding that SICI is present during arm cycling, a motor output partially mediated by spinal interneuronal networks. The amount of SICI, however, was not different from that during a position- and intensity-matched tonic contraction, suggesting that SICI is not likely a cortical mechanism contributing to higher supraspinal excitability during arm cycling compared to tonic contraction.

Intensity matters: effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability during arm cycling are phase and muscle dependent.

The present study investigated the effects of cadence and power output on corticospinal excitability to the biceps (BB) and triceps brachii (TB) during arm cycling. Supraspinal and spinal excitability were assessed using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex and transmastoid electrical stimulation (TMES) of the corticospinal tract, respectively. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS and cervicomedullary motor-evoked potentials (CMEPs) elicited by TMES were recorded at two positions during arm cycling corresponding to mid-elbow flexion and mid-elbow extension (i.e., 6 and 12 o'clock made relative to a clock face, respectively). Arm cycling was performed at combinations of two cadences (60 and 90 rpm) at three relative power outputs (20, 40, and 60% peak power output). At the 6 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased ~11.5% as cadence increased and up to ~57.2% as power output increased ( P < 0.05). In the TB, MEPs increased ~15.2% with cadence ( P = 0.013) but were not affected by power output, while CMEPs increased with cadence (~16.3%) and power output (up to ~19.1%, P < 0.05). At the 12 o'clock position, BB MEPs increased ~26.8% as cadence increased and up to ~96.1% as power output increased ( P < 0.05), while CMEPs decreased ~29.7% with cadence ( P = 0.013) and did not change with power output ( P = 0.851). In contrast, TB MEPs were not different with cadence or power output, while CMEPs increased ~12.8% with cadence and up to ~23.1% with power output ( P < 0.05). These data suggest that the "type" of intensity differentially modulates supraspinal and spinal excitability in a manner that is phase- and muscle dependent. NEW & NOTEWORTHY There is currently little information available on how changes in locomotor intensity influence excitability within the corticospinal pathway. This study investigated the effects of arm cycling intensity (i.e., alterations in cadence and power output) on corticospinal excitability projecting to the biceps and triceps brachii during arm cycling. We demonstrate that corticospinal excitability is modulated differentially by cadence and power output and that these modulations are dependent on the phase and the muscle examined.