Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to lower-limb ischaemic preconditioning
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to lower-limb ischaemic preconditioning
Do you wish to request the book?
Acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to lower-limb ischaemic preconditioning
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Acute hypoalgesic and neurophysiological responses to lower-limb ischaemic preconditioning
2025
Overview
The aim of this study was to assess if ischaemic preconditioning (IPC) can reduce pain perception and enhance corticospinal excitability during voluntary contractions. In a randomised, within-subject design, healthy participants took part in three experimental visits after a familiarisation session. Measures of pressure pain threshold (PPT), maximum voluntary isometric force, voluntary activation, resting twitch force, corticospinal excitability and corticospinal inhibition were performed before and ≥10 min after either, unilateral IPC on the right leg (3 × 5 min); a sham protocol (3 × 1 min); or a control (no occlusion). Pain perception was then assessed in response to a hypertonic saline injection into the vastus lateralis muscle. In the right (occluded) leg, PPT was 10% greater after IPC compared to sham (
P
= 0.004). PPTs were also 9.5% greater in the contralateral leg for IPC compared to sham (
P
= 0.031). Maximum voluntary force, voluntary activation and resting twitch force were not different between conditions (all
P
≥ 0.133). Measures of corticospinal excitability and inhibition also revealed no significant differences between conditions (all
P
≥ 0.240). Hypertonic saline evoked pain revealed no difference in reported intensity or duration between conditions (
P
≥ 0.082). IPC can reduce pain sensitivity in local and remote areas but does not subsequently impact neurophysiological measures of excitability or inhibition.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Analysis
/ Biomedical and Life Sciences
/ brain
/ Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Ischemia
/ Ischemic Preconditioning - methods
/ Leg
/ Limbs
/ Lower Extremity - physiology
/ Male
/ Muscle, Skeletal - physiology
/ muscles
/ Pain
/ Pain Perception - physiology
/ Pyramidal Tracts - physiology
/ Resting
/ Saline Solution, Hypertonic - administration & dosage
