Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30354778›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018

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

E J Lockyer, R J Benson, A P Hynes, L R Alcock, A J Spence, D C Button, K E Power

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E J LockyerHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
R J BensonHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
A P HynesHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
L R AlcockHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
A J SpenceHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
D C ButtonHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
K E PowerHuman Neurophysiology Laboratory, School of Human Kinetics and Recreation, Memorial University of Newfoundland , St. John's, Newfoundland , Canada.
Memorial University of Newfoundland · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Evoked Potentials, MotorAdultArmHumansMaleMotor CortexMovementMuscle, SkeletalPhysical Conditioning, HumanPyramidal Tractsarm crankingCMEPexerciseMEPpedaling

Identifiers

PMID30354778
PMCPMC6337038
OpenAlexW2898099811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.