Acute effects of muscle vibration on sensorimotor integration

• Published in: Neuroscience letters Vol. 587; pp. 46 - 50
• Main Authors: Lapole, Thomas, Tindel, Jérémy
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier Ireland Ltd 05.02.2015; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adult; Afferent Pathways - physiology; Electric Stimulation; Evoked Potentials, Motor; Female; Hand - innervation; Hand - physiology; Humans; Life Sciences; Male; Median Nerve - physiology; Motor-evoked potentials; Muscle, Skeletal - innervation; Muscle, Skeletal - physiology; Pilot Projects; Sensorimotor Cortex - physiology; Sensorimotor integration; TMS; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Vibration; Young Adult; Vibration; AF; FDI; Motor-evoked potentials; APB; LAI; rMT; MEP; Sensorimotor integration; SAI; TMS; EMG; ISI
• ISSN: 0304-3940; 1872-7972; 1872-7972
• DOI: 10.1016/j.neulet.2014.12.025

•Sensorimotor integration was investigated before and after a vibration intervention.•Transcranial magnetic stimulation was conditioned by afferent inputs.•Responders and non-responders were identified.•Responders were characterized by decreased inhibition and increased facilitation. Projections from the somesthetic cortex are believed to be involved in the modulation of motor cortical excitability by muscle vibration. The aim of the present pilot study was to analyse the effects of a vibration intervention on short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), long-latency afferent inhibition (LAI), and afferent facilitation (AF), three intracortical mechanisms reflecting sensorimotor integration. Abductor pollicis brevis (APB) SAI, AF and LAI were investigated on 10 subjects by conditioning test transcranial magnetic stimulation pulses with median nerve electrical stimulation at inter-stimuli intervals in the range 15–25ms, 25–60ms, and 100–200ms, respectively. Test motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were compared to unconditioned MEPs. Measurements were performed before and just after 15min of vibration applied to the muscle belly of APB at a frequency of 80Hz. SAI and LAI responses were significantly reduced compared to unconditioned test MEPs (P=0.039 and P<0.001, respectively). AF MEP amplitude was greater than SAI and LAI one (P=0.009 and P=0.004, respectively), but not different from test MEP (P=0.511). There was no significant main effect of vibration (P=0.905). However, 4 subjects were clearly identified as responders. Their mean vibration-induced increase was 324±195% in APB SAI MEP amplitude, and 158±53% and 319±80% in AF and LAI, respectively. Significant differences in SAI, AF and LAI vibration-induced changes were found for responders when compared to non-responders (P=0.019, P=0.038, and P=0.01, respectively). A single session of APB vibration may increase sensorimotor integration, via decreased inhibition and increased facilitation. However, such results were not observed for all subjects, suggesting that other factors (such as attention to the sensory inputs) may have played a role.