Short-term Effects of Electrical Stimulation and Voluntary Activity on Corticomotor Excitability in Healthy Individuals and People With Stroke

Low-level voluntary input enhances corticospinal excitability during ankle dorsiflexion neuromuscular electrical stimulation in healthy young adults

Previous evidence indicated that interventions with combined neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) and voluntary muscle contractions could have superior effects on corticospinal excitability when the produced total force is larger than each single intervention. However, it is unclear whether the superior effects exist when the produced force is matched between the interventions. Ten able-bodied individuals performed three intervention sessions on separate days: (i) NMES-tibialis anterior (TA) stimulation; (ii) NMES+VOL-TA stimulation combined with voluntary ankle dorsiflexion; (iii) VOL-voluntary ankle dorsiflexion. Each intervention was exerted at the same total output of 20% of maximal force and applied intermittently (5 s ON / 19 s OFF) for 16 min. Motor evoked potentials (MEP) of the right TA and soleus muscles and maximum motor response (Mmax) of the common peroneal nerve were assessed: before, during, and for 30 min after each intervention. Additionally, the ankle dorsiflexion force-matching task was evaluated before and after each intervention. Consequently, the TA MEP/Mmax during NMES+VOL and VOL sessions were significantly facilitated immediately after the interventions started until the interventions were over. Compared to NMES, larger facilitation was observed during NMES+VOL and VOL sessions, but no difference was found between them. Motor control was not affected by any interventions. Although superior combined effects were not shown compared to voluntary contractions alone, low-level voluntary contractions combined with NMES resulted in facilitated corticospinal excitability compared to NMES alone. This suggests that the voluntary drive could improve the effects of NMES even during low-level contractions, even if motor control is not affected.

Short-term facilitation effects elicited by cortical priming through theta burst stimulation and functional electrical stimulation of upper-limb muscles

Non-invasive theta burst stimulation (TBS) can elicit facilitatory or inhibitory changes in the central nervous system when applied intermittently (iTBS) or continuously (cTBS). Conversely, neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) can activate the muscles to send a sensory volley, which is also known to affect the excitability of the central nervous system. We investigated whether cortical iTBS (facilitatory) or cTBS (inhibitory) priming can affect subsequent NMES-induced corticospinal excitability. A total of six interventions were tested, each with 11 able-bodied participants: cortical priming followed by NMES (iTBS + NMES and cTBS + NMES), NMES only (iTBS_sham + NMES and cTBS_sham + NMES), and cortical priming only (iTBS + rest and cTBS + rest). After iTBS or cTBS priming, NMES was used to activate right extensor capri radialis (ECR) muscle intermittently for 10 min (5 s ON/5 s OFF). Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation motor evoked potentials (MEPs) and maximum motor response (M_max) elicited by radial nerve stimulation were compared before and after each intervention for 30 min. Our results showed that associative facilitatory iTBS + NMES intervention elicited greater MEP facilitation that lasted for at least 30 min after the intervention, while none of the interventions alone were effective to produce effects. We conclude that facilitatory iTBS priming can make the central nervous system more susceptible to changes elicited by NMES through sensory recruitment to enhance facilitation of corticospinal plasticity, while cTBS inhibitory priming efficacy could not be confirmed.

Why brain-controlled neuroprosthetics matter: mechanisms underlying electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves in rehabilitation

Delivering short trains of electric pulses to the muscles and nerves can elicit action potentials resulting in muscle contractions. When the stimulations are sequenced to generate functional movements, such as grasping or walking, the application is referred to as functional electrical stimulation (FES). Implications of the motor and sensory recruitment of muscles using FES go beyond simple contraction of muscles. Evidence suggests that FES can induce short- and long-term neurophysiological changes in the central nervous system by varying the stimulation parameters and delivery methods. By taking advantage of this, FES has been used to restore voluntary movement in individuals with neurological injuries with a technique called FES therapy (FEST). However, long-lasting cortical re-organization (neuroplasticity) depends on the ability to synchronize the descending (voluntary) commands and the successful execution of the intended task using a FES. Brain-computer interface (BCI) technologies offer a way to synchronize cortical commands and movements generated by FES, which can be advantageous for inducing neuroplasticity. Therefore, the aim of this review paper is to discuss the neurophysiological mechanisms of electrical stimulation of muscles and nerves and how BCI-controlled FES can be used in rehabilitation to improve motor function.

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation-promoted plasticity of the human brain

The application of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) to paretic limbs has demonstrated utility for motor rehabilitation following brain injury. When NMES is delivered to a mixed peripheral nerve, typically both efferent and afferent fibres are recruited. Muscle contractions brought about by the excitation of motor neurons are often used to compensate for disability by assisting actions such as the formation of hand aperture, or by preventing others including foot drop. In this context, exogenous stimulation provides a direct substitute for endogenous neural drive. The goal of the present narrative review is to describe the means through which NMES may also promote sustained adaptations within central motor pathways, leading ultimately to increases in (intrinsic) functional capacity. There is an obvious practical motivation, in that detailed knowledge concerning the mechanisms of adaptation has the potential to inform neurorehabilitation practice. In addition, responses to NMES provide a means of studying CNS plasticity at a systems level in humans. We summarize the fundamental aspects of NMES, focusing on the forms that are employed most commonly in clinical and experimental practice. Specific attention is devoted to adjuvant techniques that further promote adaptive responses to NMES thereby offering the prospect of increased therapeutic potential. The emergent theme is that an association with centrally initiated neural activity, whether this is generated in the context of NMES triggered by efferent drive or via indirect methods such as mental imagery, may in some circumstances promote the physiological changes that can be induced through peripheral electrical stimulation.

EMG- Versus EEG-Triggered Electrical Stimulation for Inducing Corticospinal Plasticity

Brain-computer interfaces have been proposed for stroke rehabilitation. Motor cortical activity derived from the electroencephalography (EEG) can trigger external devices that provide congruent sensory feedback. However, many stroke patients regain residual muscle (EMG: electromyography) control due to spontaneous recovery and rehabilitation; therefore, EEG may not be necessary as a control signal. In this paper, a direct comparison was made between the induction of corticospinal plasticity using either EEG- or EMG-controlled electrical nerve stimulation. Twenty healthy participants participated in two intervention sessions consisting of EEG- and EMG-controlled electrical stimulation. The sessions consisted of 50 pairings between foot dorsiflexion movements (decoded through either EEG or EMG) and electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve. Before, immediately after and 30 minutes after the intervention, 15 motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were elicited in tibialis anterior through transcranial magnetic stimulation. Increased MEPs were observed immediately after (62 ± 26%, 73 ± 27% for EEG- and EMG-triggered electrical stimulation, respectively) and 30 minutes after each of the two interventions (79 ± 26% and 72 ± 27%) compared to the pre-intervention measurement. There was no difference between the interventions. Both EEG- and EMG-controlled electrical stimulation can induce corticospinal plasticity which suggests that stroke patients with residual EMG can use that modality instead of EEG to trigger stimulation.

Electrical Stimulation of Back Muscles Does Not Prime the Corticospinal Pathway

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether peripheral electrical stimulation (PES) of back extensor muscles changes excitability of the corticospinal pathway of the stimulated muscle and synergist trunk muscles.

METHODS

In 12 volunteers with no history of low back pain (LBP), intramuscular fine-wire electrodes recorded electromyography (EMG) from the deep multifidus (DM) and longissimus muscles. Surface electrodes recorded general EMG from the erector spinae and abdominal muscles. Single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms tested corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI-2 and 3 ms), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) optimized for recordings of DM. Active motor threshold (aMT) to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) in DM was determined and stimulation was applied at 120% of this intensity. PES was provided via electrodes placed over the right multifidus. The effect of 20-min PES (ramped motor activation) was studied.

RESULTS

Mean aMT for DM was 42.7 ± 10% of the maximal stimulator output. No effects of PES were found on MEP amplitude (single-pulse TMS) for any trunk muscles examined. There was no evidence for changes in SICI or ICF; that is, conditioned MEP amplitude was not different between trials after PES.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that, unlike previous reports that show increased corticospinal excitability of limb muscles, PES of back muscles does not modify the corticospinal excitability. This difference in response of the motor pathway of back muscles to PES might be explained by the lesser importance of voluntary cortical drive to these muscles and the greater role of postural networks. Whether PES influences back muscle training remains unclear, yet the present results suggest that potential effects are unlikely to be explained by the effects of PES at corticospinal level with the parameters used in this study.

Effects of Leg Motor Imagery Combined With Electrical Stimulation on Plasticity of Corticospinal Excitability and Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition

Motor imagery (MI) combined with electrical stimulation (ES) enhances upper-limb corticospinal excitability. However, its after-effects on both lower limb corticospinal excitability and spinal reciprocal inhibition remain unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of MI combined with peripheral nerve ES (MI + ES) on the plasticity of lower limb corticospinal excitability and spinal reciprocal inhibition. Seventeen healthy individuals performed the following three tasks on different days, in a random order: (1) MI alone; (2) ES alone; and (3) MI + ES. The MI task consisted of repetitive right ankle dorsiflexion for 20 min. ES was percutaneously applied to the common peroneal nerve at a frequency of 100 Hz and intensity of 120% of the sensory threshold of the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle. We examined changes in motor-evoked potential (MEP) of the TA (task-related muscle) and soleus muscle (SOL; task-unrelated muscle). We also examined disynaptic reciprocal inhibition before, immediately after, and 10, 20, and 30 min after the task. MI + ES significantly increased TA MEPs immediately and 10 min after the task compared with baseline, but did not change the task-unrelated muscle (SOL) MEPs. MI + ES resulted in a significant increase in the magnitude of reciprocal inhibition immediately and 10 min after the task compared with baseline. MI and ES alone did not affect TA MEPs or reciprocal inhibition. MI combined with ES is effective in inducing plastic changes in lower limb corticospinal excitability and reciprocal Ia inhibition.

Investigation of Optimal Afferent Feedback Modality for Inducing Neural Plasticity with A Self-Paced Brain-Computer Interface

Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) can be used to induce neural plasticity in the human nervous system by pairing motor cortical activity with relevant afferent feedback, which can be used in neurorehabilitation. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal type or combination of afferent feedback modalities to increase cortical excitability in a BCI training intervention. In three experimental sessions, 12 healthy participants imagined a dorsiflexion that was decoded by a BCI which activated relevant afferent feedback: (1) electrical nerve stimulation (ES) (peroneal nerve-innervating tibialis anterior), (2) passive movement (PM) of the ankle joint, or (3) combined electrical stimulation and passive movement (Comb). The cortical excitability was assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation determining motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in tibialis anterior before, immediately after and 30 min after the BCI training. Linear mixed regression models were used to assess the changes in MEPs. The three interventions led to a significant (p < 0.05) increase in MEP amplitudes immediately and 30 min after the training. The effect sizes of Comb paradigm were larger than ES and PM, although, these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These results indicate that the timing of movement imagery and afferent feedback is the main determinant of induced cortical plasticity whereas the specific type of feedback has a moderate impact. These findings can be important for the translation of such a BCI protocol to the clinical practice where by combining the BCI with the already available equipment cortical plasticity can be effectively induced. The findings in the current study need to be validated in stroke populations.

Virtual Reality Rehabilitation With Functional Electrical Stimulation Improves Upper Extremity Function in Patients With Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare virtual reality (VR) combined with functional electrical stimulation (FES) with cyclic FES for improving upper extremity function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic stroke.

DESIGN

A pilot, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial.

SETTING

Stroke rehabilitation inpatient unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants (N=48) with hemiplegia secondary to a unilateral stroke for >3 months and with a hemiplegic wrist extensor Medical Research Council scale score ranging from 1 to 3.

INTERVENTIONS

FES was applied to the wrist extensors and finger extensors. A VR-based wearable rehabilitation device was used combined with FES and virtual activity-based training for the intervention group. The control group received cyclic FES only. Both groups completed 20 sessions over a 4-week period.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were changes in Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity and Wolf Motor Function Test scores. Secondary outcome measures were changes in Box and Block Test, Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test, and Stroke Impact Scale scores. Assessments were performed at baseline (t0) and at 2 weeks (t1), 4 weeks (t4), and 8 weeks (t8). Between-group comparisons were evaluated using a repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Forty-one participants were included in the analysis. Compared with FES alone, VR-FES produced a substantial increase in Fugl-Meyer Assessment-distal score (P=.011) and marginal improvement in Jebsen-Taylor Hand Function Test-gross score (P=.057). VR-FES produced greater, although nonsignificant, improvements in all other outcome measures, except in the Stroke Impact Scale-activities of daily living/instrumental activities of daily living score.

CONCLUSIONS

FES with VR-based rehabilitation may be more effective than cyclic FES in improving distal upper extremity gross motor performance poststroke.

Pairing Voluntary Movement and Muscle-Located Electrical Stimulation Increases Cortical Excitability

Learning new motor skills has been correlated with increased cortical excitability. In this study, different location of electrical stimulation (ES), nerve, or muscle, was paired with voluntary movement to investigate if ES paired with voluntary movement (a) would increase the excitability of cortical projections to tibialis anterior and (b) if stimulation location mattered. Cortical excitability changes were quantified using motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) at varying intensities during four conditions. Twelve healthy subjects performed 50 dorsiflexions at the ankle during nerve or muscle ES at motor threshold (MTh). ES alone was delivered 50 times and the movement was performed 50 times. A significant increase in the excitability from pre- to post-intervention (P = 0.0061) and pre- to 30 min post-intervention (P = 0.017) measurements was observed when voluntary movement was paired with muscle ES located at tibialis anterior. An increase of 50 ± 57 and 28 ± 54% in the maximum MEPs was obtained for voluntary movement paired with muscle-located and nerve-located ES, respectively. The maximum MEPs for voluntary movement alone and muscle-located ES alone were −5 ± 28 and 2 ± 42%, respectively. Pairing voluntary movement with muscle-located ES increases excitability of corticospinal projections of tibialis anterior in healthy participants. This finding suggests that active participation during muscle-located ES protocols increases cortical excitability to a greater extent than stimulation alone. The next stage of this research is to investigate the effect in people with stroke. The results may have implications for motor recovery in patients with motor impairments following neurological injury.

Standing with electrical stimulation and splinting is no better than standing alone for management of ankle plantarflexion contractures in people with traumatic brain injury: a randomised trial

QUESTION

Is a combination of standing, electrical stimulation and splinting more effective than standing alone for the management of ankle contractures after severe brain injury?

DESIGN

A multi-centre randomised trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-six adults with severe traumatic brain injury and ankle plantarflexion contractures.

INTERVENTION

All participants underwent a 6-week program. The experimental group received tilt table standing, electrical stimulation and ankle splinting. The control group received tilt table standing alone.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was passive ankle dorsiflexion with a 12Nm torque. Secondary outcomes included: passive dorsiflexion with lower torques (3, 5, 7 and 9Nm); spasticity; the walking item of the Functional Independence Measure; walking speed; global perceived effect of treatment; and perceived treatment credibility. OUTCOME MEASURES were taken at baseline (Week 0), end of intervention (Week 6), and follow-up (Week 10).

RESULTS

The mean between-group differences (95% CI) for passive ankle dorsiflexion at Week 6 and Week 10 were -3 degrees (-8 to 2) and -1 degrees (-6 to 4), respectively, in favour of the control group. There was a small mean reduction of 1 point in spasticity at Week 6 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.8) in favour of the experimental group, but this effect disappeared at Week 10. There were no differences for other secondary outcome measures except the physiotherapists' perceived treatment credibility.

CONCLUSION

Tilt table standing with electrical stimulation and splinting is not better than tilt table standing alone for the management of ankle contractures after severe brain injury.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12608000637347. [Leung J, Harvey LA, Moseley AM, Whiteside B, Simpson M, Stroud K (2014) Standing with electrical stimulation and splinting is no better than standing alone for management of ankle plantarflexion contractures in people with traumatic brain injury: a randomised trial.Journal of Physiotherapy60: 201-208].

EMG activity of finger flexor muscles and grip force following low-dose transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in healthy adult subjects

Somatosensory stimulation modulates cortical and corticospinal excitability and consequently affects motor output. Therefore, low-amplitude transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) has the potential to elicit favorable motor responses. The purpose of the two presented pilot studies was to shed light on TENS parameters that are relevant for the enhancement of two desirable motor outcomes, namely, electromyographic (EMG) activity and contraction strength of the finger flexors and wrist muscles. In 5 and 10 healthy young adults (in Study I and Study II, respectively) TENS was delivered to the volar aspect of the forearm. We manipulated TENS frequency (150 Hz vs. 5 Hz), length of application (10, 20, and 60 min), and side of application (unilateral, right forearm vs. bilateral forearms). EMG amplitude and grip force were measured before (Pre), immediately after (Post), and following 15 min of no stimulation (Study I only). The results indicated that low-frequency bursts of TENS applied to the skin overlying the finger flexor muscles enhance the EMG activity of the finger flexors and grip force. The increase in EMG activity of the flexor muscles was observed after 20 min of stimulation, while grip force was increased only after 1 h. The effects of uni- and bilateral TENS were comparable. These observations allude to a modulatory effect of TENS on the tested motor responses; however, unequivocal conclusions of the findings are hampered by individual differences that affect motor outcomes, such as in level of attention.