» Articles » PMID: 36282810

The Influence of Distal and Proximal Muscle Activation on Neural Crosstalk

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2022 Oct 25
PMID 36282810
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Previous research has indicated that neural crosstalk is asymmetric, with the dominant effector exerting a stronger influence on the non-dominant effector than vice versa. Recently, it has been hypothesized that this influence is more substantial for proximal than distal effectors. The current investigation was designed to determine the effects of distal ((First Dorsal Interosseous (FDI)) and proximal (triceps brachii (TBI)) muscle activation on neural crosstalk. Twelve right-limb dominant participants (mean age = 21.9) were required to rhythmically coordinate a 1:2 pattern of isometric force guided by Lissajous displays. Participants performed 10, 30 s trials with both distal and proximal effectors. Coherence between the two effector groups were calculated using EMG-EMG wavelet coherence. The results indicated that participants could effectively coordinate the goal coordination pattern regardless of the effectors used. However, spatiotemporal performance was more accurate when performing the task with distal than proximal effectors. Force distortion, quantified by harmonicity, indicated that more perturbations occurred in the non-dominant effector than in the dominant effector. The results also indicated significantly lower harmonicity for the non-dominant proximal effector compared to the distal effectors. The current results support the notion that neural crosstalk is asymmetric in nature and is greater for proximal than distal effectors. Additionally, the EMG-EMG coherence results indicated significant neural crosstalk was occurring in the Alpha bands (5-13 Hz), with higher values observed in the proximal condition. Significant coherence in the Alpha bands suggest that the influence of neural crosstalk is occurring at a subcortical level.

Citing Articles

High and low pitch sound stimuli effects on heart-brain coupling.

von Jakitsch C, Pinto Neto O, Pinho T, Ribeiro W, Pereira R, Constantin Baltatu O Biomed Eng Lett. 2024; 14(2):331-339.

PMID: 38374900 PMC: 10874348. DOI: 10.1007/s13534-023-00340-5.

References
1.
Stinear J, Byblow W . Rhythmic bilateral movement training modulates corticomotor excitability and enhances upper limb motricity poststroke: a pilot study. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2004; 21(2):124-31. DOI: 10.1097/00004691-200403000-00008. View

2.
Chen Y, Li S, Magat E, Zhou P, Li S . Motor Overflow and Spasticity in Chronic Stroke Share a Common Pathophysiological Process: Analysis of Within-Limb and Between-Limb EMG-EMG Coherence. Front Neurol. 2018; 9:795. PMC: 6189334. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00795. View

3.
Sosnik R . Practice makes bimanual interference imperfect--on the way to the generation of bimanual motion primitives. Cortex. 2009; 46(2):264-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.02.008. View

4.
Swinnen S . Intermanual coordination: from behavioural principles to neural-network interactions. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002; 3(5):348-59. DOI: 10.1038/nrn807. View

5.
Kagerer F, Summers J, Semjen A . Instabilities during antiphase bimanual movements: are ipsilateral pathways involved?. Exp Brain Res. 2003; 151(4):489-500. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1496-3. View