Sustained peripheral somatosensory stimulations, such as high-frequency repetitive somatosensory stimulation (HF-RSS) and vibrated stimulation, are effective in altering the balance between excitation and inhibition in the somatosensory cortex (S1) and motor cortex (M1). A recent study reported that whole-hand water flow (WF) stimulation induced neural disinhibition in the M1. Based on previous results, we hypothesized that whole-hand WF stimulation would lead to neural disinhibition in the S1 because there is a strong neural connection between M1 and S1 (...) and aimed to examine whether whole-hand WF stimulation would change the neural balance between excitation and inhibition in the S1. Nineteen healthy volunteers were studied by measuring excitation and inhibition in the S1 before and after each of the four 15-min interventions. The excitation and inhibition in the S1 were assessed using somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and paired-pulse inhibition (PPI) induced by single- and paired-pulse stimulations, respectively. The four interventions were as follows: control, whole-hand water immersion, whole-hand WF, and HF-RSS. The results showed no significant changes in SEPs and PPI following any intervention. However, changes in PPI with an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 30 ms were significantly correlated with the baseline value before whole-hand WF. Thus, the present findings indicated that the whole-hand WF stimulation had a greater decreased neural inhibition in participants with higher neural inhibition in the S1 at baseline. Considering previous results on M1, the present results possibly show that S1 has lower plasticity than M1 and that the duration (15 min) of each intervention may not have been enough to alter the balance of excitation and inhibition in the S1. (shrink)

In people with chronic low back pain, maladaptive structural and functional changes on a cortical level have been identified. On a functional level, somatosensory cortical excitability has been shown to be reduced in chronic pain conditions, resulting in cortical disinhibition. The occurrence of structural and/or functional maladaptive cortical changes in people with CLBP could play a role in maintaining the pain. There is currently no measurement protocol for cortical excitability that employs stimulation directly to the lower back. We developed (...) a protocol for the measurement of single pulse somatosensory evoked potential waveforms and paired-pulse behavior generated from sensory nerves of the lower back and quantified its test–retest reliability in a sample of 30 healthy individuals to gain insights into the normal variability of cortical responses, which could then be compared to results from people with CLBP. We investigated cortical excitability by measuring SEPs and PPB. PPB was defined as the ratio of the amplitude of the second cortical response divided by the first cortical response. A2s was determined by subtracting the response to single-pulse stimuli from the paired pulse stimuli response to account for linear superposition effects. The test–retest reliability of the protocol was very poor with no evidence of systematic bias but a high amount of random variability between sessions. There was no significant difference in the right side PPB for session 1 and session 2 ; mean session difference [ = −0.44 ; t = −1.17, p = 0.26]. The ICC3.1 for the outlier-removed right side PPB were 0.19 and 0.43 for left side PPB. This finding potentially has wider implications for PPB protocols. If these findings were replicated in other groups and other nerves, it would question the validity of this measure more generally. However, these findings are restricted to healthy people and sensory nerves of the lower back and may not be generalizable. (shrink)