ORCID Profile
0000-0003-2034-4516
Current Organisation
Université Laval
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 28-02-2021
DOI: 10.1002/EJP.1746
Abstract: Pain influences motor control. Previous reviews observed that pain reduces the excitability of corticospinal projections to muscles tested with transcranial magnetic stimulation. However, the independent effect of the type of pain models (tonic, phasic), pain location and tissues targeted (e.g. muscle, skin) remains unexplored. The objective of this review was to determine the influence of experimental pain and of different methodological factors on the corticospinal excitability. Three electronic databases were searched: Embase, Pubmed and Web of Science. Meta‐analyses were conducted in three consecutive steps to reduce methodological variability: (a) all studies (b) same pain location (c) same tissues, pain location and muscle state. Strength of evidence was assessed for each analysis performed. Forty studies were included in the review and 26 in the meta‐analysis as it focused only on studies using tonic pain. Overall, there was conflicting/moderate evidence of a diminution of corticospinal excitability during and after tonic pain. When considering only pain location, tonic hand and face pain induced a reduction in corticospinal excitability (limited evidence). Both muscle and cutaneous hand pain reduced corticospinal excitability (limited/conflicting evidence). Similar results were observed for phasic pain (limited evidence). Our results confirm the inhibitory effect of pain on corticospinal excitability for both tonic and phasic pain. This reduction was specific to hand and face pain. Also, both cutaneous and muscle hand pain reduced excitability. The strength of evidence remains limited/conflicting. More high‐quality studies are needed to confirm our conclusions. This study adds evidence on the effect of specific factors on the modulation of corticospinal excitability during/after experimental pain. The reduction in corticospinal excitability was driven by hand and face pain. We confirmed previous results that muscle pain reduces corticospinal excitability and provided evidence of a similar effect for cutaneous pain. Both models may inform on the influence of different types of pain on motor control. Future studies are needed to determine the origin of the effect of pain.
Publisher: MDPI AG
Date: 29-09-2016
Publisher: American Physiological Society
Date: 05-2018
Abstract: As in iduals with musculoskeletal disorders often experience motor impairments, contemporary rehabilitation relies heavily on the use of motor learning principles. However, motor impairments are often associated with pain. Although there is substantial evidence that muscle pain interferes with motor control, much less is known on its impact on motor learning. The objective of the present study was to assess the effects of muscle pain on locomotor learning. Two groups (Pain and Control) of healthy participants performed a locomotor adaptation task (robotized ankle-foot orthosis perturbing ankle movements during swing) on two consecutive days. On day 1 (acquisition), hypertonic saline was injected in the tibialis anterior (TA) muscle of the Pain group participants, while Control group participants were pain free. All participants were pain free on day 2 (retention). Changes in movement errors caused by the perturbation were assessed as an indicator of motor performance. Detailed analysis of kinematic and electromyographic data provided information about motor strategies. No between-group differences were observed on motor performance measured during the acquisition and retention phases. However, Pain group participants had a residual movement error later in the swing phase and smaller early TA activation than Control group participants, thereby suggesting a reduction in the use of anticipatory motor strategies to overcome the perturbation. Muscle pain did not interfere with global motor performance during locomotor adaptation. The different motor strategies used in the presence of muscle pain may reflect a diminished ability to anticipate the consequences of a perturbation. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This study shows that experimental muscle pain does not influence global motor performance during the acquisition or next-day retention phases of locomotor learning. This contrasts with previous results obtained with cutaneous pain, emphasizing the risk of directly extrapolating from one pain modality to another. Muscle pain affected motor strategies used when performing the task, however: it reduced the ability to use increased feedforward control to overcome the force field.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.NEUROSCIENCE.2017.11.024
Abstract: 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 litude 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 litude 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.
No related grants have been discovered for Laurent Bouyer.