Search

Patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are frequently affected by fatigue. However, hardly any data is available on the fatigability of the motor system. We evaluated fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) questionnaires in 20 participants with mTBI (>3 months post injury; 8 females) and 20 age- and sex matched controls. Furthermore, index finger abduction force and electromyography of the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the right hand were measured during brief and sustained maximal voluntary contractions (MVC). Double pulse stimulation (100 Hz) was applied to the ulnar nerve to evoke doublet-forces before and after the sustained contraction. Seven superimposed twitches were evoked during the sustained MVC to quantify voluntary muscle activation. mTBI participants reported higher FSS scores (mTBI: 5.2 ± 0.8 SD vs. control: 2.8 ± 0.8 SD; P < 0.01). During the sustained MVC, force declined to similar levels in mTBI (30.0 ± 9.9% MVC) and control participants (32.7 ± 9.8% MVC, P = 0.37). The decline in doublet-forces after the sustained MVC (mTBI: to 37.2 ± 12.1 vs. control: to 41.4 ± 14.0% reference doublet, P = 0.32) and the superimposed twitches evoked during the sustained MVC (mTBI: median 9.3, range: 2.2–32.9 vs. control: median 10.3, range: 1.9–31.0% doubletpre, P = 0.34) also did not differ between groups. Force decline was associated with decline in doublet-force (R2 = 0.50, P < 0.01) for both groups. Including a measure of voluntary muscle activation resulted in more explained variance for mTBI participants only. No associations between self-reported fatigue and force decline or voluntary muscle activation were found in mTBI participants. However, the physical subdomain of the MFIS was associated with the decline in doublet-force after the sustained MVC (R2 = 0.23, P = 0.04). These results indicate that after mTBI, increased levels of self-reported physical fatigue reflected increased fatigability due to changes in peripheral muscle properties, but not force decline or muscle activation. Additionally, muscle activation was more important to explain the decline in voluntary force (performance fatigability) after mTBI than in control participants.

Patients with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are frequently affected by fatigue. However, hardly any data is available on the fatigability of the motor system. We evaluated fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) questionnaires in 20 participants with mTBI (>3 months post injury; 8 females) and 20 age- and sex matched controls. Furthermore, index finger abduction force and electromyography of the first dorsal interosseous muscle of the right hand were measured during brief and sustained maximal voluntary contractions (MVC). Double pulse stimulation (100 Hz) was applied to the ulnar nerve to evoke doublet-forces before and after the sustained contraction. Seven superimposed twitches were evoked during the sustained MVC to quantify voluntary muscle activation. mTBI participants reported higher FSS scores (mTBI: 5.2 ± 0.8 SD vs. control: 2.8 ± 0.8 SD ; P < 0.01). During the sustained MVC, force declined to similar levels in mTBI (30.0 ± 9.9% MVC) and control participants (32.7 ± 9.8% MVC, P = 0.37). The decline in doublet-forces after the sustained MVC (mTBI: to 37.2 ± 12.1 vs. control: to 41.4 ± 14.0% reference doublet, P = 0.32) and the superimposed twitches evoked during the sustained MVC (mTBI: median 9.3, range: 2.2–32.9 vs. control: median 10.3, range: 1.9–31.0% doubletpre, P = 0.34) also did not differ between groups. Force decline was associated with decline in doublet-force (R 2 = 0.50, P < 0.01) for both groups. Including a measure of voluntary muscle activation resulted in more explained variance for mTBI participants only. No associations between self-reported fatigue and force decline or voluntary muscle activation were found in mTBI participants. However, the physical subdomain of the MFIS was associated with the decline in doublet-force after the sustained MVC (R 2 = 0.23, P = 0.04). These results indicate that after mTBI, increased levels of self-reported physical fatigue reflected increased fatigability due to changes in peripheral muscle properties, but not force decline or muscle activation. Additionally, muscle activation was more important to explain the decline in voluntary force (performance fatigability) after mTBI than in control participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and motor point stimulation have been used to determine voluntary activation (VA). However, very few studies have directly compared the two stimulation techniques for assessing VA of the elbow flexors. The purpose of this study was to compare TMS and motor point stimulation for assessing VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Participants performed a fatigue protocol that included twelve, 15 s isometric elbow flexor contractions. Participants completed a set of isometric elbow flexion contractions at 100, 75, 50, and 25% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) prior to and following fatigue contractions 3, 6, 9, and 12 and 5 and 10 min post-fatigue. Force and EMG of the bicep and triceps brachii were measured for each contraction. Force responses to TMS and motor point stimulation and EMG responses to TMS (motor evoked potentials, MEPs) and Erb's point stimulation (maximal M-waves, Mmax) were also recorded. VA was estimated using the equation: VA% = (1−SITforce/PTforce) × 100. The resting twitch was measured directly for motor point stimulation and estimated for both motor point stimulation and TMS by extrapolation of the linear regression between the superimposed twitch force and voluntary force. MVC force, potentiated twitch force and VA significantly (p < 0.05) decreased throughout the elbow flexor fatigue protocol and partially recovered 10 min post fatigue. VA was significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated when using TMS compared to motor point stimulation in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Motor point stimulation compared to TMS superimposed twitch forces were significantly (p < 0.05) higher at 50% MVC but similar at 75 and 100% MVC. The linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force significantly (p < 0.05) decreased with fatigue. There was no change in triceps/biceps electromyography, biceps/triceps MEP amplitudes, or bicep MEP amplitudes throughout the fatigue protocol at 100% MVC. In conclusion, motor point stimulation as opposed to TMS led to a higher estimation of VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. The decreased linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force led to an underestimation of the estimated resting twitch force and thus, a reduced VA.

Transcranial magnetic (TMS) and motor point stimulation have been used to determine voluntary activation (VA). However, very few studies have directly compared the two stimulation techniques for assessing VA of the elbow flexors. The purpose of this study was to compare TMS and motor point stimulation for assessing VA in nonfatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Participants performed a fatigue protocol that included twelve, 15 s isometric elbow flexor contractions. Participants completed a set of isometric elbow flexion contractions at 100, 75, 50, and 25% of maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) prior to and following fatigue contractions 3, 6, 9, and 12 and 5 and 10 min post-fatigue. Force and EMG of the bicep and triceps brachii were measured for each contraction. Force responses to TMS and motor point stimulation and EMG responses to TMS (motor evoked potentials, MEPs) and Erb's point stimulation (maximal M-waves, Mmax) were also recorded. VA was estimated using the equation: VA% = (1 - SIT force/PT force) × 100. The resting twitch was measured directly for motor point stimulation and estimated for both motor point stimulation and TMS by extrapolation of the linear regression between the superimposed twitch force and voluntary force. MVC force, potentiated twitch force and VA significantly (p < 0.05) decreased throughout the elbow flexor fatigue protocol and partially recovered 10 min post fatigue. VA was significantly (p < 0.05) underestimated when using TMS compared to motor point stimulation in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. Motor point stimulation compared to TMS superimposed twitch forces were significantly (p < 0.05) higher at 50% MVC but similar at 75 and 100% MVC. The linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force significantly (p < 0.05) decreased with fatigue. There was no change in triceps/biceps electromyography, biceps/triceps MEP amplitudes, or bicep MEP amplitudes throughout the fatigue protocol at 100% MVC. In conclusion, motor point stimulation as opposed to TMS led to a higher estimation of VA in non-fatigued and fatigued elbow flexors. The decreased linear relationship between TMS superimposed twitch force and voluntary force led to an underestimation of the estimated resting twitch force and thus, a reduced VA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]