Next Article in Journal
Parkinson’s Disease-Cognitive Rating Scale for Evaluating Cognitive Impairment in Parkinson’s Disease: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Combined Supra- and Sub-Lesional Epidural Electrical Stimulation for Restoration of the Motor Functions after Spinal Cord Injury in Mini Pigs
Previous Article in Journal
Acute DOB and PMA Administration Impairs Motor and Sensorimotor Responses in Mice and Causes Hallucinogenic Effects in Adult Zebrafish
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/brainsci10090587
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Activation of the Supplementary Motor Areas Enhances Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition in Healthy Individuals

by
Ryo Hirabayashi
*,
Sho Kojima
,
Mutsuaki Edama
and
Hideaki Onishi
Institute for Human Movement and Medical Sciences, Niigata University of Health and Welfare, Niigata 950-3198, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2020, 10(9), 587; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090587
Submission received: 26 July 2020 / Revised: 14 August 2020 / Accepted: 22 August 2020 / Published: 24 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanisms of Neuromodulation and Rehabilitation after Spinal Cord Injury)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The supplementary motor area (SMA) may modulate spinal reciprocal inhibition (RI) because the descending input from the SMA is coupled to interneurons in the spinal cord via the reticulospinal tract. Our study aimed to verify whether the anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (anodal-tDCS) of the SMA enhances RI. Two tDCS conditions were used: the anodal stimulation (anodal-tDCS) and sham stimulation (sham-tDCS) conditions. To measure RI, there were two conditions: one with the test stimulus (alone) and the other with the conditioning-test stimulation intervals (CTIs), including 2 ms and 20 ms. RI was calculated at multiple time points: before the tDCS intervention (Pre); at 5 (Int 5) and 10 min; and immediately after (Post 0); and at 5, 10 (Post 10), 15, and 20 min after the intervention. In anodal-tDCS, the amplitude values of H-reflex were significantly reduced for a CTI of 2 ms at Int 5 to Post 0, and a CTI of 20 ms at Int 5 to Pot 10 compared with Pre. Stimulation of the SMA with anodal-tDCS for 15 min activated inhibitory interneurons in RIs by descending input from the reticulospinal tract via cortico–reticulospinal projections. The results showed that 15 min of anodal-tDCS in the SMA enhanced and sustained RI in healthy individuals.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Dysfunction of neurons of the upper motor system [1,2,3], spinal cord injury [4], and aging [5,6,7,8,9,10] disrupt smooth joint movement owing to excessive simultaneous activation (ESA) of antagonist muscles, thus decreasing exercise performance. ESA in the lower limbs degrades gait functions and increases falling risk [11,12]. Further, during joint exercises based on repetitive and quick actions, ESA causes inhibition of smooth joint movement and triggers fatigue in the agonist muscle [13]. The mechanism underlying these ESAs is the repression of interneurons of reciprocal inhibition (RI) by Renshaw cells [1,2,3].
RI is an essential function for normal joint movement, balance and gait, and involves three inhibitory pathways. These pathways include disynaptic Ia RI (DRI) that directly links to spinal anterior horn cells (SAHC) of antagonist muscles [14,15] and presynaptic short (D1 inhibition) and long (D2 inhibition) latency inhibition pathways mediated by primary afferent depolarization (PAD) interneurons [14]. These RI pathways enable and control coordinated movement by inhibiting excessive contraction of antagonist muscles [5,9,13].
Many studies report the enhancement of RI aimed at inhibiting excessive simultaneous activity and improving coordinated movement and gait [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. In particular, to enhance RI, peripheral patterned electrical stimulation (PES) [18,20,24,26,27] and repetitive passive movement (RPM) [16,17] are more effective than brain stimulation. A groundbreaking report shows a synergistic impact after combined brain and peripheral stimulation [24,26]. In previous studies, primary motor area (M1) in the brain was activated using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) [24]. Alternatively, some studies used intermittent theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation (iTBS) [26]. However, in brain stimulation alone, only enhancement of DRI during intervention was observed in tDCS and aftereffects were not present [19,21,24]. ITBS, which is capable of local activity, enhanced D1 inhibition only immediately after intervention; however, no sustained aftereffects of DRI or D1 inhibition during or after the intervention [26]. The activity of M1 by tDCS or iTBS alone did not exhibit adequate aftereffects.
We focused on the supplementary motor area (SMA), a brain region with the potential to enhance RI. The SMA is heavily involved in planning of both simple and complex motor behavior and in behavior sequencing, learning, and motor control [28,29,30,31]. Stimulating the activity of the SMA by anodal-tDCS and TMS improves gait, balance, and coordinated movement [32,33,34]. SMAs display an abundance of cortical reticular projection origins and increase descending input from the reticulospinal tract via cortico–reticulospinal projections [35,36]. The reticulospinal tract has a large number of nerve endings in the gray matter of the spinal cord and projects to intervening cells in this region [37]. We hypothesized that the activity of the reticular spinal tract modulates RI because it is involved in inhibiting muscle tone and improving gait and motor control [38,39].
The purpose of this study was to examine whether RI is enhanced by anodal-tDCS of the SMA.

2. Materials and Methods

To determine whether anodal-tDCS to the SMA enhances RI, we intervened in the SMA using tDCS for 15 min and examined the amount of RI (DRI and D1 inhibition) in the right soleus (Sol) muscle H-reflex.

2.1. Study Participants

We recruited 20 healthy male adults with an average age of 21.4 ± 0.5 years, a height of 170.9 ± 6.6 cm, and bodyweight of 62.5 ± 6.5 kg. All participants provided written informed consent to participate. This study was approved by the University Ethics Committee (18310—191101). All experiments were conducted in accordance with the University ethical standards and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

2.2. Measurement of Limb Position

As in our previous studies [16,17], the position of the right lower limb was measured at the hip (100°), knee (120°), and ankle joints (110°). Thigh and foot were fixed to a seat and footplate, respectively (Takei Scientific Instruments, Niigata, Japan) (Figure 1), to maintain participants’ posture during the experiment.

2.3. Electromyography (EMG)

EMG was performed using Ag/AgCl electrodes (Blue Sensor, METS, Tokyo, Japan) with a distance of 20 mm between the electrodes. Electrodes were positioned in the tibialis anterior (TA) and Sol [40]; ground electrodes were placed between electrical stimulation electrodes and surface EMG electrodes on the TA muscle [41,42]. EMG activity was filtered using a 10–1000 Hz bandpass filter and amplified 100× (FA-DL-720-140; 4Assist, Tokyo, Japan) before being digitally stored on a personal computer for offline analyses. The sampling rate was 10 kHz. PowerLab 8/30 and LabChart 7 (both AD Instruments, Colorado Springs, CO, USA) were used for data analyses.

2.4. tDCS

tDCS was delivered by a direct current stimulator (Eldith, neuroConn GmbH, Ilmenau, Germany). A pair of sponge electrodes (5 × 7 cm2, 35 cm2) soaked in saline were employed. The anodal electrode was placed in the SMA, and the cathodal electrode was placed on the right orbit. The sagittal midline was 3 cm anterior to the parietal lobe [43,44,45,46]. This placement was consistent with the International system 10–20. Two conditions were established for the tDCS intervention: the anodal stimulation condition (anodal-tDCS) and the sham stimulation condition (sham-tDCS). For anodal-tDCS, a 1 mA current was set (with current density = 0.028 mA/cm2) [24] and duration of current application was set to 15 min, with fade in and fade out times of 10 s. This same stimulation method was applied for sham-tDCS except for the duration of current application which was limited to 15 s with a fade in and fade out time of 10 s.

2.5. Electrical Stimulation

Nerve stimulation was induced by 1 ms square wave pulses using an SS-104J isolator (Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan) and a SEN-8203 electrical stimulator (Nihon Kohden). Nerve stimulation was performed using the same technique as that used in our previous study [16,17], with the test stimulus administered to the tibial nerve and the conditional stimulus to the common peroneal nerve.

2.6. Reciprocal Inhibition

RI was measured in the same manner as done in previous studies [14,16,26,47,48]. Sol H-reflex amplitude values were measured after conditioning and test stimuli. The intensity of the conditioning stimulus was set to the M-wave threshold (stimulus intensity evoking <100 μV) of TA [14,17,26]. Conditioning stimuli were carefully placed so as not to cause peroneal muscle contraction [26,47,48]. Because the degree of RI varied with the magnitude of H-reflex [49], the intensity of test stimuli was set to induce an H-reflex of 15–25% of the maximum amplitude value of the Sol M wave (Mmax). The three stimulus conditions were a conditioning-test stimulus interval (CTI) of 2 ms or 20 ms and a test stimulus without a conditioning stimulus (single). A CTI of 2 ms reportedly produces the greatest enhancement of DRI [14,50], and that of 20 ms reportedly produces the greatest enhancement of D1 inhibition [14]. The number of stimulations administered was randomly set to 36 (three stimulation conditions × 12 sets). Stimulation frequency was set at 0.3 Hz. At this frequency, H-reflex was measured after at least three stimuli because H-reflex stabilizes after the third stimulus [51].

2.7. Experimental Protocol

The detailed procedure followed is illustrated in Figure 2. The intensity of conditioned and test stimuli was set before RI measurements. RI was assessed before stimulation (Pre); at 5 (Int 5) and 10 (Int 10) min during; immediately after (Post 0); and at 5 (Post 5), 10 (Post 10), 15 (Post 15), and 20 (Post 20) min after the tDCS intervention. Intervention for tDCS conditioning was 15 min, and two conditions (sham-tDCS, anodal-tDCS) were performed randomly. Interventions were implemented at intervals of ≥1 week.
The two tDCS conditions, i.e., the anodal-tDCS condition (anodal-tDCS) and the sham-tDCS condition (sham-tDCS), were performed randomly in the SMA for 15 min. Each tDCS intervention was conducted at an interval of ≥1 week. The Mmax of the Sol and the MT of the TA were measured before the RI measurements. RI was measured under three conditions.
MT, motor threshold; SMA, supplementary motor area; tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation

2.8. Statistical Analyses

For Sol and TA, H-reflex and M-wave amplitude values were measured by averaging peak-to-peak values of waveform amplitude of each stimulation condition. RI was calculated as a percentage (%) by dividing Sol H-reflex amplitude value by Mmax amplitude value. Percent notation was calculated by dividing the H-reflex amplitude value of the conditioned stimulus by H-reflex amplitude value of the test stimulus alone ([conditioned H-reflex amplitude value/test H-reflex amplitude value] × 100). Background EMG (Sol), Mmax amplitude (Sol), and M-wave amplitude (TA) values during the experiments were analyzed as reference data. Effects of tDCS condition, stimulation condition, and measurement time was analyzed by repeated-measures three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). As a post-hoc analysis, the single and two stimulation conditions, for each tDCS intervention, were compared using paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Comparisons of measurement times for each tDCS condition were performed using paired t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Statistical significance was considered at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The Sol muscle background EMG, Mmax amplitude values of the Sol muscle, and the M-wave amplitude values of the TA muscle are presented in Table 1a–c.
Three-way ANOVA (tDCS condition, stimulation condition and measurement time) demonstrated a primary effect of the tDCS conditioning (F(1, 19) = 4.717, p = 0.043, partial η2 = 0.199) and a primary effect of the stimulus condition (F(2, 38) = 185.152, p < 0.001, partial η2 = 0.907) but not of measurement time (F(7, 133) = 1.387, p = 0.216, partial η2 = 0.068). In addition, there was a significant interaction among the three factors (F(14, 266) = 2.221, p = 0.007, partial η2 = 0.105). Among the measurement times, no significant differences were observed in Sol H-reflex amplitude values for a single condition (Table 2). Thus, after conditioning stimuli, changes in Sol H-reflex amplitude values were independent of the test stimulus intensity.
H-reflex amplitude values after single or two stimuli were compared, and at each time interval, H-reflex amplitude decreased significantly for CTIs of 2 and 20 ms after two stimuli compared with that after a single stimulus (p < 0.001, Table 2). DRI and D1 inhibition were observed under all conditions.
Changes in the H-reflex amplitude values at CTIs of 2 and 20 ms were compared with the Pre values (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The sham-tDCS condition at CTIs of 2 ms and 20 ms did not produce any significant change in H-reflex amplitude values compared with Pre values. Conversely, anodal-tDCS caused significant reduction in H-reflex amplitude values at Int 5 (p < 0.001), Int 10 (p = 0.025), and Post 0 (p = 0.034) compared with the Pre values. Similarly, anodal-tDCS led to significantly reduced H-reflex amplitude value with CTI of 20 ms at Int 5 (p = 0.003), Int 10 (p < 0.001), Post 0 (p = 0.018), Post 5 (p = 0.006), and Post 10 (p = 0.041).

4. Discussion

This study is the first to report that SMA activity enhances RI. Intervention in the SMA via anodal-tDCD for 15 min upregulated DRI from Int 5 to Post 0 and also upregulated the D1 inhibition from Int 5 to Post 10.
The results in the current study demonstrated that in comparison with single stimuli, H-reflex amplitude values were significantly reduced at CTIs of 2 and 20 ms for all tDCS conditions. This finding is indicative of the presence of DRI and D1 inhibition [14,15].
Previous studies of brain stimulation for RI enhancement report M1 stimulation [19,20,21,24,26]. An intervention of anodal-tDCS in M1 shows that DRI produces no aftereffects, whereas there was an increase in inhibition during the intervention; the authors reported no changes in D1 inhibition [19,20,21,24,26]. These aftereffects might be explained by the hypothesis that tDCS applied to the lower limb region of M1 causes concomitant activation of the TA and Sol regions. As the activity is similar to that of M1 during co-contraction, it is considered that RI was inhibited and aftereffects were not observed [24]. Conversely, iTBS, which activates more localized brain regions than tDCS, enhanced D1 inhibition immediately after the intervention, whereas DRI remained unchanged [26]. Compared with these previous studies, the current study found that anodal-tDCS of the SMA is an efficacious method of brain stimulation to enhance RI. Both DRI and D1 inhibition yielded aftereffects during and immediately after the intervention; in addition, D1 inhibition led to aftereffects until Post 10.
The SMA is the origin of the cortico–reticulospinal projection and mobilizes much of the reticulospinal tract via this projection [35,36]. The reticulospinal tract, via the cortico–reticulospinal projection, displays a large number of nerve endings in the spinal gray matters and projects intervening inhibitory cells in this region [37]. These cells contain many inhibitory interneurons (Ia inhibitory and PAD interneurons) that support DRI and D1 inhibition. Thus, downward input provided by SMA activity could activate inhibitory interneurons and subsequently lead to enhancement of RI. The activity of the SMA improves gait, balance and coordinated movement [32,33,34], and RI plays an important role in these functions. Therefore, it was suggested that SMA and RI is involved in an important regulatory pathway.
The current study had an experimental design that required rapid measurement of RI before and after the tDCS conditioning. Thus, we could not evaluate the excitability of SAHCs. This parameter would have been measured by H/M recruitment curves. Moreover, a few previously performed studies [18,24,26,27] that calculated RI, had also calculated Hmax using stimulus intensity of the Sol H-reflex normalized to Mmax. The current study used the same method to quickly calculate RI and assess the aftereffects of tDCS in real-time.

Clinical Application

The SMA activity explored in this study suggests an efficacious therapy that could be used as adjuvant therapy for the revival of associated motor functions following central nervous system injury. This study shows an effective brain-stimulation intervention for RI enhancement in healthy individuals. Previous brain stimulation methods did not report an enhancement of both DRI and D1 inhibition. Further, D1 inhibition resulted in aftereffects persisting up to 10 min after the intervention. Prolonging the duration of aftereffects is an effective adjuvant therapy for rehabilitation. Future studies should examine a combination of brain stimulation (targeting SMA) with RPM or PES because the combination of brain and peripheral stimulation is expected to prolong the aftereffect. In addition, next steps should include validation of the long-term effects of this therapy, including improvement of the functional abnormalities and dysregulated motor function in patients.

5. Conclusions

The present study examined whether intervention with tDCS of the SMA would contribute to RI enhancement. The results showed that DRI and D1 inhibition were both enhanced during and immediately after the intervention. In addition, D1 inhibition persisted up to 10 min after the intervention. This study is the first to report that anodal-tDCS intervention in the SMA contributes to RI enhancement in healthy individuals.

Author Contributions

Authors’ contributions R.H., S.K., M.E., and H.O. designed the study. R.H. wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. R.H., S.K., M.E., and H.O. contributed to analysis and interpretation of data, and assisted in the preparation of the manuscript. All other authors have contributed to data collection and interpretation, and critically reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (20K19464) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and a Grant-in-Aid for Research A (R02B11) from the Niigata University of Health and Welfare, 2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest associated with this manuscript.

References

  1. Hayashi, A.; Kagamihara, Y.; Nakajima, Y.; Narabayashi, H.; Okuma, Y.; Tanaka, R. Disorder in reciprocal innervation upon initiation of voluntary movement in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Exp. Brain Res. 1988, 70, 437–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kagamihara, Y.; Ohi, K.; Tanaka, R. Disorder in reciprocal inhibition upon initiation of voluntary ankle dorsiflexion movement in cerebellar motor disorders. In Role of the Cerebellum and Basal Ganglia in Voluntary Movement; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kagamihara, Y.; Tanaka, R. Disorder of the reciprocal Ia inhibitory pathway in spasticity. In Recent Advances in Clinical Neurophysiology; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 859–862. [Google Scholar]
  4. Calancie, B.; Broton, J.G.; Klose, K.J.; Traad, M.; Difini, J.; Ayyar, D.R. Evidence that alterations in presynaptic inhibition contribute to segmental hypo- and hyperexcitability after spinal cord injury in man. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1993, 89, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nagai, K.; Yamada, M.; Uemura, K.; Yamada, Y.; Ichihashi, N.; Tsuboyama, T. Differences in muscle coactivation during postural control between healthy older and young adults. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2011, 53, 338–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Hortobagyi, T.; Solnik, S.; Gruber, A.; Rider, P.; Steinweg, K.; Helseth, J.; DeVita, P. Interaction between age and gait velocity in the amplitude and timing of antagonist muscle coactivation. Gait Posture 2009, 29, 558–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Hortobagyi, T.; Devita, P. Mechanisms responsible for the age-associated increase in coactivation of antagonist muscles. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2006, 34, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Morita, H.; Shindo, M.; Yanagawa, S.; Yoshida, T.; Momoi, H.; Yanagisawa, N. Progressive decrease in heteronymous monosynaptic Ia facilitation with human ageing. Exp. Brain Res. 1995, 104, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Morita, H.; Shindo, M.; Ikeda, S.; Yanagisawa, N. Decrease in presynaptic inhibition on heteronymous monosynaptic Ia terminals in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Movement disorders Off. J. Mov. Dis. Soc. 2000, 15, 830–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baudry, S.; Maerz, A.H.; Enoka, R.M. Presynaptic modulation of Ia afferents in young and old adults when performing force and position control. J. Neurophysiol. 2010, 103, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Bhagchandani, N.; Schindler-Ivens, S. Reciprocal inhibition post-stroke is related to reflex excitability and movement ability. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2012, 123, 2239–2246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Fung, J.; Barbeau, H. A dynamic EMG profile index to quantify muscular activation disorder in spastic paretic gait. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1989, 73, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blackwell, J.R.; Cole, K.J. Wrist kinematics differ in expert and novice tennis players performing the backhand stroke: Implications for tennis elbow. J. Biomech. 1994, 27, 509–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mizuno, Y.; Tanaka, R.; Yanagisawa, N. Reciprocal group I inhibition on triceps surae motoneurons in man. J. Neurophysiol. 1971, 34, 1010–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Okuma, Y.; Lee, R.G. Reciprocal inhibition in hemiplegia: Correlation with clinical features and recovery. Can. J. Neurol. Sci. J. Can. Sci. Neurol. 1996, 23, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Hirabayashi, R.; Edama, M.; Kojima, S.; Miyaguchi, S.; Onishi, H. Effects of repetitive passive movement on ankle joint on spinal reciprocal inhibition. Exp. Brain Res. 2019, 237, 3409–3417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hirabayashi, R.; Edama, M.; Kojima, S.; Miyaguchi, S.; Onishi, H. Enhancement of spinal reciprocal inhibition depends on the movement speed and range of repetitive passive movement. Eur. J. Neurosci. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Perez, M.A.; Field-Fote, E.C.; Floeter, M.K. Patterned sensory stimulation induces plasticity in reciprocal ia inhibition in humans. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2003, 23, 2014–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Roche, N.; Lackmy, A.; Achache, V.; Bussel, B.; Katz, R. Impact of transcranial direct current stimulation on spinal network excitability in humans. J. Physiol. 2009, 587, 5653–5664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fujiwara, T.; Tsuji, T.; Honaga, K.; Hase, K.; Ushiba, J.; Liu, M. Transcranial direct current stimulation modulates the spinal plasticity induced with patterned electrical stimulation. Clin. Neurophysiol. Off. J. Int. Fed. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2011, 122, 1834–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Roche, N.; Lackmy, A.; Achache, V.; Bussel, B.; Katz, R. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation over the leg motor area on lumbar spinal network excitability in healthy subjects. J. Physiol. 2011, 589, 2813–2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jessop, T.; DePaola, A.; Casaletto, L.; Englard, C.; Knikou, M. Short-term plasticity of human spinal inhibitory circuits after isometric and isotonic ankle training. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2013, 113, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kubota, S.; Hirano, M.; Morishita, T.; Uehara, K.; Funase, K. Patterned sensory nerve stimulation enhances the reactivity of spinal Ia inhibitory interneurons. Neuroreport 2015, 26, 249–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yamaguchi, T.; Fujiwara, T.; Tsai, Y.A.; Tang, S.C.; Kawakami, M.; Mizuno, K.; Kodama, M.; Masakado, Y.; Liu, M. 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. 2016, 234, 1469–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Ritzmann, R.; Krause, A.; Freyler, K.; Gollhofer, A. Acute whole-body vibration increases reciprocal inhibition. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2018, 60, 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yamaguchi, T.; Fujiwara, T.; Lin, S.C.; Takahashi, Y.; Hatori, K.; Liu, M.; Huang, Y.Z. Priming with intermittent theta burst transcranial magnetic stimulation promotes spinal plasticity induced by peripheral patterned electrical stimulation. Front. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Takahashi, Y.; Fujiwara, T.; Yamaguchi, T.; Kawakami, M.; Mizuno, K.; Liu, M. The effects of patterned electrical stimulation combined with voluntary contraction on spinal reciprocal inhibition in healthy individuals. Neuroreport 2017, 28, 434–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vollmann, H.; Conde, V.; Sewerin, S.; Taubert, M.; Sehm, B.; Witte, O.W.; Villringer, A.; Ragert, P. Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over supplementary motor area (SMA) but not pre-SMA promotes short-term visuomotor learning. Brain Stimul. 2013, 6, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ullman, M.T. Is Broca’s area part of a basal ganglia thalamocortical circuit? Cortex J. Devoted Study Nerv. Syst. Behav. 2006, 42, 480–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nguyen, V.T.; Breakspear, M.; Cunnington, R. Reciprocal interactions of the SMA and cingulate cortex sustain premovement activity for voluntary actions. J. Neurosci. Off. J. Soc. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 16397–16407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Nachev, P.; Kennard, C.; Husain, M. Functional role of the supplementary and pre-supplementary motor areas. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9, 856–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lu, C.; Amundsen Huffmaster, S.L.; Tuite, P.J.; MacKinnon, C.D. The effects of anodal tDCS over the supplementary motor area on gait initiation in Parkinson’s disease with freezing of gait: A pilot study. J. Neurol. 2018, 265, 2023–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Manji, A.; Amimoto, K.; Matsuda, T.; Wada, Y.; Inaba, A.; Ko, S. Effects of transcranial direct current stimulation over the supplementary motor area body weight-supported treadmill gait training in hemiparetic patients after stroke. Neurosci. Lett. 2018, 662, 302–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hupfeld, K.E.; Ketcham, C.J.; Schneider, H.D. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) to the supplementary motor area (SMA) influences performance on motor tasks. Exp. Brain Res. 2017, 235, 851–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Keizer, K.; Kuypers, H.G. Distribution of corticospinal neurons with collaterals to the lower brain stem reticular formation in monkey (Macaca fascicularis). Exp. Brain Res. 1989, 74, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Matsuyama, K.; Drew, T. Organization of the projections from the pericruciate cortex to the pontomedullary brainstem of the cat: A study using the anterograde tracer Phaseolus vulgaris-leucoagglutinin. J. Comp. Neurol. 1997, 389, 617–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Matsuyama, K.; Takakusaki, K. Organizing principles of axonal projections of the long descending reticulospinal pathway and its target spinal lamina VIII commissural neurons: With special reference to the locomotor function. In Handbook on White Matter: Structure, Function and Changes; Nova Science Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 335–356. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zwergal, A.; Linn, J.; Xiong, G.; Brandt, T.; Strupp, M.; Jahn, K. Aging of human supraspinal locomotor and postural control in fMRI. Neurobiol. Aging 2012, 33, 1073–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Takakusaki, K. Neurophysiology of gait: From the spinal cord to the frontal lobe. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2013, 28, 1483–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hermens, H.J.; Freriks, B.; Disselhorst-Klug, C.; Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. J. Electromyogr. Kinesiol. Off. J. Int. Soc. Electrophysiol. Kinesiol. 2000, 10, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Crone, C.; Hultborn, H.; Jespersen, B.; Nielsen, J. Reciprocal Ia inhibition between ankle flexors and extensors in man. J. Physiol. 1987, 389, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Takada, Y.; Miyahara, T.; Tanaka, T.; Ohyama, T.; Nakamura, Y. Modulation of H reflex of pretibial muscles and reciprocal Ia inhibition of soleus muscle during voluntary teeth clenching in humans. J. Neurophysiol. 2000, 83, 2063–2070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Hikosaka, O.; Sakai, K.; Miyauchi, S.; Takino, R.; Sasaki, Y.; Putz, B. Activation of human presupplementary motor area in learning of sequential procedures: A functional MRI study. J. Neurophysiol. 1996, 76, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Lee, K.-M.; Chang, K.-H.; Roh, J.-K. Subregions within the supplementary motor area activated at different stages of movement preparation and execution. NeuroImage 1999, 9, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Cona, G.; Marino, G.; Semenza, C. TMS of supplementary motor area (SMA) facilitates mental rotation performance: Evidence for sequence processing in SMA. NeuroImage 2017, 146, 770–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kim, T.; Wright, D.L. Transcranial direct current stimulation of supplementary motor region impacts the effectiveness of interleaved and repetitive practice schedules for retention of motor skills. Neuroscience 2020, 435, 58–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Hirabayashi, R.; Edama, M.; Kojima, S.; Ito, W.; Nakamura, E.; Kikumoto, T.; Onishi, H. Spinal reciprocal inhibition in the co-contraction of the lower leg depends on muscle activity ratio. Exp. Brain Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hirabayashi, R.; Edama, M.; Kojima, S.; Nakamura, M.; Ito, W.; Nakamura, E.; Kikumoto, T.; Onishi, H. Effects of Reciprocal Ia Inhibition on Contraction Intensity of Co-contraction. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Crone, C.; Hultborn, H.; Mazieres, L.; Morin, C.; Nielsen, J.; Pierrot-Deseilligny, E. Sensitivity of monosynaptic test reflexes to facilitation and inhibition as a function of the test reflex size: A study in man and the cat. Exp. Brain Res. 1990, 81, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nielsen, J.; Kagamihara, Y. The regulation of disynaptic reciprocal Ia inhibition during co-contraction of antagonistic muscles in man. J. Physiol. 1992, 456, 373–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Floeter, M.K.; Kohn, A.F. H-reflexes of different sizes exhibit differential sensitivity to low frequency depression. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1997, 105, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brainsci 10 00587 g001 550
Figure 1. Limb position.
Figure 1. Limb position.
Brainsci 10 00587 g001
Brainsci 10 00587 g002 550
Figure 2. Experiment protocol.
Figure 2. Experiment protocol.
Brainsci 10 00587 g002
Brainsci 10 00587 g003 550
Figure 3. Tracing raw data-Sol muscle. The figure depicts a representative raw data-trace of a subject during anodal-tDCS. Stimulation conditions: single, CTI: 2 ms (DRI), and CTI: 20 ms (D1 inhibition), and waveforms of Sol H-reflex: 12. Bold black lines are averages of the 12 waveforms. The horizontal axis is the measurement time of RI.
Figure 3. Tracing raw data-Sol muscle. The figure depicts a representative raw data-trace of a subject during anodal-tDCS. Stimulation conditions: single, CTI: 2 ms (DRI), and CTI: 20 ms (D1 inhibition), and waveforms of Sol H-reflex: 12. Bold black lines are averages of the 12 waveforms. The horizontal axis is the measurement time of RI.
Brainsci 10 00587 g003
Brainsci 10 00587 g004 550
Figure 4. Comparison of the temporal changes in RI. (a,b) Sham-tDCS; (c,d) anodal-tDCS; (a,c) CTI of 2 ms; and (b,d) CTI of 20 ms. The thin solid lines show changes over time for 20 subjects, and the thick solid line indicates mean values. The vertical axis is the amplitude of the conditioning H-reflex/amplitude of the test H-reflex × 100. The horizontal axis is the measurement time of RI. Pre values were compared with those at different measurement times using a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction. Values indicated by filled symbols did not show significant differences compared with the Pre values. The open symbols indicate values significantly different from the Pre values (p < 0.05). CTI, conditioning stimulation–test stimulation interval; tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation.
Figure 4. Comparison of the temporal changes in RI. (a,b) Sham-tDCS; (c,d) anodal-tDCS; (a,c) CTI of 2 ms; and (b,d) CTI of 20 ms. The thin solid lines show changes over time for 20 subjects, and the thick solid line indicates mean values. The vertical axis is the amplitude of the conditioning H-reflex/amplitude of the test H-reflex × 100. The horizontal axis is the measurement time of RI. Pre values were compared with those at different measurement times using a paired t-test with Bonferroni correction. Values indicated by filled symbols did not show significant differences compared with the Pre values. The open symbols indicate values significantly different from the Pre values (p < 0.05). CTI, conditioning stimulation–test stimulation interval; tDCS, transcranial direct current stimulation.
Brainsci 10 00587 g004
Table
Table 1. The Sol muscle background EMG, Mmax amplitude values of the Sol muscle, and the M-wave amplitude values of the TA muscle.
Table 1. The Sol muscle background EMG, Mmax amplitude values of the Sol muscle, and the M-wave amplitude values of the TA muscle.
a. Background electromyography (EMG) (Sol)
PreInt 5Int 10Post 0Post 5Post 10Post 15Post 20
Sham-tDCS2.9 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.13.0 ± 0.12.9 ± 0.12.8 ± 0.1
Anodal-tDCS3.1 ± 0.33.1 ± 0.23.4 ± 0.33.4 ± 0.33.2 ± 0.23.1 ± 0.33.1 ± 0.23.3 ± 0.3
b. Mmax amplitude values (Sol)
Sham-tDCSAnodal-tDCS
10.96 ± 0.8111.58 ± 0.92
c. M-wave amplitude values (TA)
PreInt 5Int 10Post 0Post 5Post 10Post 15Post 20
Sham-tDCS89.0 ± 1.690.1 ± 1.988.6 ± 1.387.7 ± 2.088.6 ± 1.391.0 ± 1.887.5 ± 1.887.9 ± 1.9
Anodal-tDCS88.1 ± 3.088.4 ± 3.689.4 ± 3.190.2 ± 2.188.0 ± 3.088.2 ± 3.585.7 ± 5.286.9 ± 3.6
a. The data represents values as Mean ± SE. Sol background EMG (μV), EMG was measured 30–50 ms before the test stimulus). b. The data represents values as Mean ± SE (mV). c. Data are reported as mean ± SE (μV).
Table
Table 2. H-reflex amplitude (% Mmax).
Table 2. H-reflex amplitude (% Mmax).
PreInt 5Int 10Post 0Post 5Post 10Post 15Post 20
Sham-tDCSSingle20.0 ± 0.319.7 ± 0.320.4 ± 0.320.3 ± 0.220.2 ± 0.320.7 ± 0.320.5 ± 0.320.4 ± 0.4
CTI 2 ms17.1 ± 0.4 ‡17.0 ± 0.4 ‡17.8 ± 0.4 ‡17.6 ± 0.4 ‡17.5 ± 0.4 ‡17.6 ± 0.4 ‡17.5 ± 0.4 ‡17.4 ± 0.5 ‡
CTI 20 ms15.2 ± 0.4 ‡14.8 ± 0.4 ‡15.3 ± 0.4 ‡15.4 ± 0.4 ‡15.3 ± 0.4 ‡15.9 ± 0.4 ‡15.7 ± 0.4 ‡15.3 ± 0.4 ‡
Anodal-tDCSSingle20.4 ± 0.420.6 ± 0.420.1 ± 0.320.1 ± 0.320.2 ± 0.420.5 ± 0.320.4 ± 0.319.6 ± 0.3
CTI 2 ms17.1 ± 0.4 ‡16.2 ± 0.4 ‡16.0 ± 0.5 ‡16.0 ± 0.6 ‡16.6 ± 0.5 ‡17.0 ± 0.5 ‡17.1 ± 0.4 ‡16.7 ± 0.5 ‡
CTI 20 ms15.4 ± 0.4 ‡14.5 ± 0.5 ‡13.8 ± 0.4 ‡14.4 ± 0.6 ‡14.3 ± 0.5 ‡14.8 ± 0.5 ‡15.2 ± 0.5 ‡14.6 ± 0.5 ‡
The data represents values as Mean ± SE. The table depicts the results of every measurement time and for every tDCS condition. The Sol H-reflex amplitude values were calculated as mean ± SE of the peak-to-peak values of amplitude of each waveform as H-reflex/Mmax × 100. (Paired t-test with Bonferroni correction was performed; ‡ p < 0.001).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hirabayashi, R.; Kojima, S.; Edama, M.; Onishi, H. Activation of the Supplementary Motor Areas Enhances Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition in Healthy Individuals. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090587

AMA Style

Hirabayashi R, Kojima S, Edama M, Onishi H. Activation of the Supplementary Motor Areas Enhances Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition in Healthy Individuals. Brain Sciences. 2020; 10(9):587. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090587

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hirabayashi, Ryo, Sho Kojima, Mutsuaki Edama, and Hideaki Onishi. 2020. "Activation of the Supplementary Motor Areas Enhances Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition in Healthy Individuals" Brain Sciences 10, no. 9: 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090587

APA Style

Hirabayashi, R., Kojima, S., Edama, M., & Onishi, H. (2020). Activation of the Supplementary Motor Areas Enhances Spinal Reciprocal Inhibition in Healthy Individuals. Brain Sciences, 10(9), 587. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10090587

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop