Corticospinal and spinal excitability during peripheral or central cooling in humans.

Cold exposure can impair fine and gross motor control and threaten survival. Most motor task decrement is due to peripheral neuromuscular factors. Less is known about cooling on central neural factors. Corticospinal and spinal excitability were determined during cooling of the skin (Tsk) and core (Tco). Eight subjects (four female) were actively cooled in a liquid perfused suit for 90 min (2 °C inflow temperature), passively cooled for 7 min, and then rewarmed for 30 min (41 °C inflow temperature). Stimulation blocks included 10 transcranial magnetic stimulations [eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) which indicate corticospinal excitability], 8 trans-mastoid electrical stimulations [eliciting cervicomedullary evoked potentials (CMEPs) which indicate spinal excitability] and 2 brachial plexus electrical stimulations [eliciting maximal compound motor action potentials (Mmax)]. These stimulations were delivered every 30 min. Cooling for 90 min reduced Tsk to 18.2 °C while Tco did not change. At the end of rewarming Tsk returned to baseline while Tco decreased by 0.8 °C (afterdrop) (P < 0.001). Metabolic heat production was higher than baseline at the end of passive cooling (P = 0.01), and 7 min into rewarming (P = 0.04). MEP/Mmax remained unchanged throughout. CMEP/Mmax increased by 38% at end cooling (although increased variability at this time rendered the increase insignificant, P = 0.23) and 58% at end warming when Tco was 0.8 °C below baseline (P = 0.02). Cooling increased spinal excitability but not corticospinal excitability. Cooling may decrease cortical and/or supraspinal excitability which is compensated for by increased spinal excitability. This compensation is key to providing a motor task and survival advantage.

Corticospinal excitability of the biceps brachii is shoulder position dependent.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of shoulder position on corticospinal excitability (CSE) of the biceps brachii during rest and a 10% maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). Participants (n = 9) completed two experimental sessions with four conditions: 1) rest, 0° shoulder flexion; 2) 10% MVC, 0° shoulder flexion; 3) rest, 90° shoulder flexion; and 4) 10% MVC, 90° shoulder flexion. Transcranial magnetic, transmastoid electrical, and Erb's point stimulation were used to induce motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), cervicomedullary MEPs (CMEPs), and maximal muscle compound potentials (Mmax), respectively, in the biceps brachii in each condition. At rest, MEP, CMEP, and Mmax amplitudes increased (P < 0.01) by 509.7 ± 118.3%, 113.3 ± 28.3%, and 155.1 ± 47.9%, respectively, at 90° compared with 0°. At 10% MVC, MEP amplitudes did not differ (P = 0.08), but CMEP and Mmax amplitudes increased (P < 0.05) by 32.3 ± 10.5% and 127.9 ± 26.1%, respectively, at 90° compared with 0°. MEP/Mmax increased (P < 0.01) by 224.0 ± 99.1% at rest and decreased (P < 0.05) by 51.3 ± 6.7% at 10% MVC at 90° compared with 0°. CMEP/Mmax was not different (P = 0.22) at rest but decreased (P < 0.01) at 10% MVC by 33.6 ± 6.1% at 90° compared with 0°. EMG increased (P < 0.001) by 8.3 ± 2.0% at rest and decreased (P < 0.001) by 21.4 ± 4.4% at 10% MVC at 90° compared with 0°. In conclusion, CSE of the biceps brachii was dependent on shoulder position, and the pattern of change was altered within the state in which it was measured. The position-dependent changes in Mmax amplitude, EMG, and CSE itself all contribute to the overall change in CSE of the biceps brachii.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrate that when the shoulder is placed into two common positions for determining elbow flexor force and activation, corticospinal excitability (CSE) of the biceps brachii is both shoulder position and state dependent. At rest, when the shoulder is flexed from 0° to 90°, supraspinal factors predominantly alter CSE, whereas during a slight contraction, spinal factors predominantly alter CSE. Finally, the normalization techniques frequently used by researchers to investigate CSE may under- and overestimate CSE when shoulder position is changed.