The corticospinal excitability influenced by motor imagery and simultaneous electrical stimulation

18 healthy volunteers were involved and the effect of functional neuromuscular electrical stimulation, which causes flexion of the hand, on the corticospinal excitability during motor imagery and resting state was investigated in this study. It was shown that the combined action of functional electrical stimulation and the kinesthetic representation of movements leads to an increase in the amplitudes of motor evoked potentilals, caused by a single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. At the same time, in the state of motor rest this effect was not obtained. Since a change in corticospinal excitability at the cortical level may affect the processes of plastic reorganization necessary for the restoration of motor functions after strokes and other neurotraumas, the results of this work have a direct practical potential. In particular, the possibility of creating effective training complexes for the restoration of motor functions based on brain-computer interfaces, based on the presentation of movements with functional neuromuscular stimulation as a sensor-motor feedback, is discussed. Rehabilitation with the use of such training complexes will help to shed light on the mechanisms of motor recovery, which are based on the phenomena of neuroplasticity, due to changes in the level of excitability of the neurons of the sensorimotor cortex.

transcranial magnetic stimulation, motor imagery, corticospinal exciteability, functional neuromuscular stimulation, neurorehabilitation, motor evoked potentials

1. Pfurtscheller G., Neuper C. Motor imagery activates primary sensorimotor area in humans // Neurosci. Lett. 1997. Vol. 239. N 2–3. P. 65–68.

2. Lotze M., Halsband U. Motor imagery // J. Physiol. Paris. 2006. Vol. 99. N. 4–6. P. 386–395.

3. Mizuguchi N., Nakata, H., Uchida, Y., Kanosue, K. Motor imagery and sport performance // Jpn. J. Phys. Fit. Sport. 2012. Vol. 1. N. 1. P. 103–111.

4. Walsh N.E., Jones L., McCabe C.S. The mechanisms and actions of motor imagery within the clinical setting // Textbook of neuromodulation / Eds. H. Knotkova and D. Rasche. N.Y.: Springer, 2015. P. 151–158.

5. Guerra Z.F., Lucchetti A.L.G., Lucchetti G. Motor imagery training after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials // J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2017. Vol. 41. N 4. P. 205–214.

6. Li R.Q., Li Z.M., Tan J.Y., Chen G.L., Lin W.Y. Effects of motor imagery on walking function and balance in patients after stroke: a quantitative synthesis of randomized controlled trials // Complement. Ther. Clin. 2017. Vol. 28. P. 75–84.

7. Kaplan A.Ya. Neurophysiological foundations and practical realizations of the brain– machine interfaces in the technology in neurological rehabilitation // Human Physiology. 2016. Vol. 42. N 1. P. 103–110.

8. Kaneko F., Hayami T., Aoyama T., Kizuka T. Motor imagery and electrical stimulation reproduce corticospinal excitability at levels similar to voluntary muscle contraction // J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2014. Vol. 11. N. 1: 94.

9. Vogt S., Di Rienzo F., Collet C., Collins A., Guillot A. Multiple roles of motor imagery during action observation // Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2013. Vol. 7: 807.

10. Reynolds C., Osuagwu B.A., Vuckovic A. Influence of motor imagination on cortical activation during functional electrical stimulation // Clin. Neurophysiol. 2015. Vol. 126. N 7. P. 1360– 1369.

11. Kurumadani H., Yoshimura M., Fukae A., Onishi K., Hayashi J., Shinomiya R., Sunagawa T. Long-term disuse of the hand affects motor imagery ability in patients with complete brachial plexus palsy // Neuroreport. 2019. Vol. 30. N 6. P. 452– 456.

12. Saito K., Yamaguchi T., Yoshida N., Tanabe S., Kondo K., Sugawara K. Combined effect of motor imagery and peripheral nerve electrical stimulation on the motor cortex // Exp. Brain Res. 2013. Vol. 227. N. 3. P. 333–342.

13. Kaplan A., Vasilyev A., Liburkina S., Yakovlev L. Poor BCI performers still could benefit from motor imagery training // Foundations of augmented cognition: neuroergonomics and operational neuroscience. AC 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9743 / Eds. D. Schmorrow and C. Fidopiastis. Cham: Springer, 2016. P. 46–56

14. Vasilyev A., Liburkina S., Yakovlev L., Perepelkina O., Kaplan A. Assessing motor imagery in brain-computer interface training: psychological and neurophysiological correlates // Neuropsychologia. 2017. Vol. 97. P. 56–65.

15. Liburkina S.P., Vasilyev A.N., Yakovlev L.V., Gordleeva S.Y., Kaplan A.Y. A motor imagerybased brain–computer interface with vibrotactile stimuli // Neurosci. Behav. Physiol. 2018. Vol. 48. N 9. P. 1067–1077.

16. Васильев А.Н., Либуркина С.П., Каплан А.Я. Латерализация паттернов ЭЭГ у человека при представлении движений руками в интерфейсе мозг–компьютер // Ж. высш. нервн. деят. им. И.П. Павлова. 2016. Т. 66. № 3. С. 302.

17. Schalk G., McFarland D.J., Hinterberger T., Birbaumer N., Wolpaw J.R. BCI2000: a generalpurpose brain-computer interface (BCI) system // IEEE T. Biomed. Eng. 2004. Vol. 51. N 6. P. 1034–1043.

18. Hashimoto R., Rothwell J.C. Dynamic changes in corticospinal excitability during motor imagery // Exp. Brain Res. 1999. Vol. 125. N 1. P. 75–81.

19. Mokienko O., Chervyakov A., Kulikova S., Bobrov P., Chernikova L., Frolov A., Piradov M. Increased motor cortex excitability during motor imagery in brain-computer interface trained subjects // Front. Comput. Neurosci. 2013. Vol. 7: 168.