Effect of training status on beta-range corticomuscular coherence in agonist vs. antagonist muscles during isometric knee contractions
Antagonist muscle co-activation is thought to be partially regulated by cortical influences, but direct motor cortex involvement is not fully understood. Corticomuscular coherence (CMC) measures direct functional coupling of the motor cortex and muscles. As antagonist co-activation differs according to training status, comparison of CMC in agonist and antagonist muscles and in strength-trained and endurance-trained individuals may provide in-depth knowledge of cortical implication in antagonist muscle co-activation. Electroencephalographic and electromyographic signals were recorded, while 10 strength-trained and 11 endurance-trained participants performed isometric knee contractions in flexion and extension at various torque levels. CMC magnitude in 13–21 and 21–31 Hz frequency bands was quantified by CMC analysis between Cz electroencephalographic electrode activity and all electromyographic signals. CMC was significant in both 13–21 and 21–31 Hz frequency bands in flexor and extensor muscles regardless of participant group, torque level, and direction of contraction. CMC magnitude decreased more in antagonist than in agonist muscles as torque level increased. Finally, CMC magnitude was higher in strength-trained than in endurance-trained participants. These findings provide experimental evidence that the motor cortex directly regulates both agonist and antagonist muscles. Nevertheless, the mechanisms underlying muscle activation may be specific to their function. Between-group modulation of corticomuscular coherence may result from training-induced adaptation, re-emphasizing that corticomuscular coherence analysis may be efficient in characterizing corticospinal adaptations after long-term muscle specialization.
KeywordsCo-activation Cortical regulation Primary motor cortex Time–frequency analysis Training-induced adaptation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
- Bayraktaroglu Z, von Carlowitz-Ghori K, Losch F, Nolte G, Curio G, Nikulin VV (2011) Optimal imaging of cortico-muscular coherence through a novel regression technique based on multi-channel EEG and un-rectified EMG. Neuroimage 57:1059–1067. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.04.071 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bigot J, Longcamp M, Dal Maso F, Amarantini D (2011) A new statistical test based on the wavelet cross-spectrum to detect time-frequency dependence between non-stationary signals: application to the analysis of cortico-muscular interactions. Neuroimage 55:1504–1518. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.01.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dal Maso F, Longcamp M, Amarantini D (2012) Training-related decrease in antagonist muscles activation is associated with increased motor cortex activation: evidence of central mechanisms for control of antagonist muscles. Exp Brain Res 220:287–295. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3137-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Enders H, Nigg BM (2015) Measuring human locomotor control using EMG and EEG: current knowledge, limitations and future considerations. Eur J Sport Sci pp 1–11 doi: 10.1080/17461391.2015.1068869
- Mendez-Balbuena I, Huethe F, Schulte-Monting J, Leonhart R, Manjarrez E, Kristeva R (2012) Corticomuscular coherence reflects interindividual differences in the state of the corticomuscular network during low-level static and dynamic forces. Cereb Cortex 22:628–638. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhr147 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cremoux S, Tallet J, Dal Maso F, Berton E, Amarantini D (2017) Impaired corticomuscular coherence during isometric elbow flexion contractions in human with cervical spinal cord injury. Eur J Neurosci. doi: 10.1111/ejn.13641