Effects of repetitive passive movement on ankle joint on spinal reciprocal inhibition
Repetitive passive movement (RPM) activates afferent Ia fibers. The input of afferent Ia fibers from antagonist muscle may modulate the extent of spinal reciprocal inhibition (RI). However, effects of RPM on RI remain unknown. We aimed to clarify these effects in 20 healthy adults. Four RPM tasks (40°/s, 80°/s, 120°/s, and 160°/s), with the range of ankle joint movement set to 40°, ranging from 10° in dorsiflexion to 30° in plantar flexion, were performed for 10 min. For measuring RI, a deep peroneal nerve as a conditioning stimulus, tibial nerve as a test stimulus, and three condition–test stimulus intervals (CTIs; single, 2 ms, and 20 ms) were used. The stimulation frequency was 0.3 Hz for 36 times (3 stimulation conditions × 12 sets). RI was measured before, immediately after, and 5, 10, 15, and 20 min (Pre, Post 5, 10, 15, and 20, respectively) after the task. The extent of reciprocal Ia inhibition (CTI 2 ms) significantly increased in Post 5 and 10 at RPM speed of ≥ 120°/s. The extent of D1 inhibition (CTI 20 ms) significantly increased in Post 5 and 10 at RPM speed of ≥ 80°/s, and continued to increase until Post 15 at RPM speed of 160°/s. The extent of RI was the highest at RPM speed of 160°/s for both Ia and D1. Therefore, high RPM may increase the extent of reciprocal Ia inhibition and D1 inhibition, suggesting that rapid movements affect RI by increasing the firing frequency from the muscle spindle to afferent Ia fibers.
KeywordsH-reflex M wave Electromyograph Joint movement Electrical stimulation
The authors would like to thank Enago (http://www.enago.jp) for the English language review.
Study conception and design: RH, ME, and HO; experiments: RH; data interpretation: RH, SM, SK, and HO; statistical analysis: RH, SK, and HO; writing and revising the manuscript: HO, ME, SK, and RH.
This study was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (18K17769) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). This study was also supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Research A (R01B32) from the Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 2018.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (include name of committee + reference number) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
The subject signed consent for the use and publication of data obtained in experiments.
- Baldissera F, Hultborn H, Illert M (1981) Integration in spinal neuronal systems. Am Physiol Soc 2:509–595Google Scholar
- Kagamihara Y, Tanaka R (1996) Disorder of the reciprocal Ia inhibitory pathway in spasticity. In: Recent advances in clinical neurophysiology. Elsevier Science, pp 859–862Google Scholar
- Sasaki R, Nakagawa M, Tsuiki S et al (2017) Regulation of primary motor cortex excitability by repetitive passive finger movement frequency. Neuroscience 357:232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.06.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Takahashi Y, Fujiwara T, Yamaguchi T, Kawakami M, Mizuno K, Liu M (2017) The effects of patterned electrical stimulation combined with voluntary contraction on spinal reciprocal inhibition in healthy individuals. NeuroReport 28:434–438. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnr.0000000000000777 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yamaguchi T, Fujiwara T, Tsai YA et al (2016) The effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation and patterned electrical stimulation on spinal inhibitory interneurons and motor function in patients with spinal cord injury. Exp Brain Res 234:1469–1478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4561-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Yamaguchi T, Fujiwara T, Lin SC, Takahashi Y, Hatori K, Liu M, Huang YZ (2018) Priming with intermittent theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation promotes spinal plasticity induced by peripheral patterned electrical stimulation. Front Neurosci 12:508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00508 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar