Search

Individuals with pain report higher sensory disturbances during sensorimotor conflicts compared to pain-free individuals. In the pain field, it is frequently assumed that disturbances arise from a discordance between sensory and efference copies (defined as sensory-motor conflict), while in the sensorimotor control field they are considered to result from the incongruence between sensory modalities (defined as sensory-sensory conflict). The general aim of this study was to disentangle the relative contribution of motor efferences and sensory afferences to the increased sensitivity to sensorimotor conflicts in individual with fibromyalgia (n = 20) compared to controls (n = 20). We assessed sensory and motor disturbances during sensory-sensory and sensory-motor conflicts using a robotized exoskeleton interfaced with a 2D virtual environment. There was a significant interaction between the group and the type of conflict (p = 0.03). Moreover, the increase in conflict sensitivity from sensory-sensory to sensory-motor conflicts in fibromyalgia was related to conflict-induced motor disturbances (r = 0.57; p < 0.01), but did not result from a poorer proprioception (r = 0.12; p = 0.61). Therefore, it appears that higher conflict sensitivity in fibromyalgia is mainly explained by a sensory-motor conflict rather by a sensory-sensory conflict. We suggest this arises due to a deficit in updating predicted sensory feedback rather than in selecting appropriate motor commands., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Many studies have described the dynamic modulation of corticospinal excitability of the prime movers during motor preparation. However although anticipatory postural adjustments (APA) are an inherent part of most voluntary movements, investigation of trunk muscle corticospinal excitability during motor preparation has been neglected in the literature. In the present study, the corticospinal excitability of the superficial multifidus (sMF) and rectus abdominis (RA) muscle has been assessed during the preparation of rapid arm flexions and extensions in fifteen participants. A Warning signal informed participants to prepare to move prior to a Go signal. Transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied during baseline and at 6 time intervals before (Delay period) or after (Motor execution period) the Go signal. Results revealed a significant inhibition of the amplitude of sMF motor-evoked potentials in both flexion and extension movements within the Delay period compared to baseline, while no significant modulation was observed for RA. During the Motor Execution period for arm extension, sMF displayed even more inhibition, along with a large and significant facilitation of RA. During the Motor execution period for arm flexion, sMF presented a trend toward larger motor-evoked potential amplitude compared to Delay period. These results suggest the existence of two concurrent mechanisms underlying motor preparation for APA: (i) before the Go signal, a nonspecific inhibitory mechanism for sMF, likely to preclude motor program release; (ii) after the Go signal, a task-specific modulation of corticospinal excitability consistent with the EMG pattern during the early phase of movement., (Copyright © 2017 IBRO. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)