Short latency stretch reflexes depend on the balance of activity in agonist and antagonist muscles during ballistic elbow movements

Abstract

AbstractThe spinal stretch reflex is a fundamental building block of motor function, modulating sensitivity across tasks to augment volitional control. Stretch reflex sensitivity can vary continuously during movement and changes between movement and posture. While there have been many demonstrations of reflex modulation and investigations into the underlying mechanisms, there have been few attempts to provide simple, quantitative descriptions of the relationship between the volitional control and stretch reflex sensitivity throughout tasks that require the coordinated activity of several muscles. Here we develop such a description and use it to test the hypothesis that the modulation of stretch reflex sensitivity during movement can be explained by the balance of activity within the relevant agonist and antagonist muscles better than by the activity only in the muscle homonymous with the elicited reflex. We applied continuous pseudo-random perturbations of elbow angle as subjects completed approximately 500 movements in elbow flexion and extension. Measurements were averaged across the repeated movements to obtain continuous estimates of stretch reflex amplitude and background muscle activity. We also ran a control experiment on a subset of subjects performing postural tasks at muscle activity levels matched to those measured in the movement task. For both experiments, we assessed the relationship between background activity in the agonist and antagonist muscles controlling elbow movement and the stretch reflexes elicited in them. We found that modulation in the stretch reflexes during movement can be described by modulation of the background activity in the agonist and antagonist muscles, and that models incorporating agonists and antagonists are significantly better than those considering only the homonymous muscle. Increases in agonist muscle activity enhanced stretch reflex sensitivity whereas increases in antagonist activity suppressed reflex activity. Surprisingly, the magnitude of these effects was similar, suggesting a balance of control between agonists and antagonist that is very different than the dominance of sensitivity to agonist activity during postural tasks. This greater relative sensitivity to antagonist background activity during movement is due to a large decrease in sensitivity to homonymous muscle activity during movement rather than substantial changes in the influence of antagonist muscle activity.