European Journal of Sport Science

ISSN: 1746-1391 (Print) 1536-7290 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tejs20

Cortical and spinal excitabilities are differently

balanced in power athletes

Sidney Grosprêtre, Amandine Bouguetoch & Alain Martin

To cite this article: Sidney Grosprêtre, Amandine Bouguetoch & Alain Martin (2019): Cortical and
spinal excitabilities are differently balanced in power athletes, European Journal of Sport Science,
DOI: 10.1080/17461391.2019.1633414

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1633414

Accepted author version posted online: 17

Jun 2019.
Published online: 28 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tejs20
European Journal of Sport Science, 2019
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1633414

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Cortical and spinal excitabilities are differently balanced in power

athletes

1
SIDNEY GROSPRÊTRE , AMANDINE BOUGUETOCH2, & ALAIN MARTIN2
1
EA4660, C3S Culture Sport Health Society, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Besançon, France & 2Cognition,
Action and Sensorimotor Plasticity (CAPS), INSERM UMR1093, University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté, Dijon, France

Abstract
It is recognised that power-sport practices have a particular effect on lower-limb neuromuscular parameters. Less is known
about corticospinal network adaptation, however, or whether these adaptations are specific to the lower limb. In the
present study, the corticospinal and spinal excitabilities of upper and lower limbs have been examined in a group of
untrained participants (UT, n = 10) and compared to those of a group of well-trained athletes practicing parkour (PK, n =
10). This activity, consisting of overcoming obstacles offered by the urban environment, was chosen as a model of power
activity. The motor evoked potentials (MEPs) induced by transcranial magnetic stimulations and H-reflexes and maximal
M-waves evoked by peripheral nerve stimulations were elicited in both upper- (flexor carpi radialis [FCR]) and lower-limb
muscles (soleus [SOL] and gastrocnemius medialis [GM]). The results tended toward an overall greater corticospinal
excitability in PK than in UT (as evidenced by greater MEP/Mmax ratio) and lower spinal excitability (lower Hmax/
Mmax). H/MMAX ratio was lower for PK (0.32) than for UT (0.41) in SOL (p = 0.02), while MEP/MMAX was greater for
PK than for UT in FCR (PK: 0.12; UT: 0.06; P = 0.04) and in GM (PK: 0.05, UT: 0.03, P = 0.02). In both limbs, the
decrease of spinal excitability induced by parkour practice was counterbalanced by an increase in cortical excitability.
Finally, the present study indicates that such long-term power practice leads to similar corticospinal plasticity in upper and
lower limbs, explained by the similar solicitation of those muscles.

Keywords: PARKOUR, freerunning, transcranial magnetic stimulation, H-reflex, motor evoked potential

Highlights
. Parkour, a power-practice, induces many changes of the cortico-spinal network.
. Such power athletes have lower spinal excitability than untrained, but greater corticospinal excitability.
. Same behavior have been observed on both upper and lower limbs.

Introduction
It is recognised that with long-term sport practice, the
type of training shapes the neuromuscular profile of
an athlete’s lower limb. Especially, power-type ath-
letes showed greater mechanical twitch of plantar
flexors (Casabona, Polizzi, & Perciavalle, 1990; Gros-
prêtre, Gimenez, & Martin, 2018; Lattier, Millet,
Maffiuletti, Babault, & Lepers, 2003; Maffiuletti
et al., 2001). However, while neuromuscular par-
ameters have been well documented, less is known
about the modulation of corticospinal networks
with the practice of a power-type activity. This is of
particular interest since power athletes have shown
a low spinal excitability associated with a high
activation level (Casabona et al., 1990; Grosprêtre
et al., 2018). Since voluntary activation level is not
a direct marker of cortical excitability, the question
of the balance between spinal and cortical adap-
tations induced by such long-term practice remains
open. Moreover, corticospinal excitability, com-
monly assessed by the amplitude of the motor poten-
tial evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation
(TMS), has been rarely assessed in athletes (Mosca-
telli et al., 2016) and, to the best of our knowledge,
never in power athletes.
To explore this issue, it is necessary to find a
reliable model for athletes who present the typical
power-type neuromuscular profile. Among several

Correspondence: Sidney Grosprêtre, C3S Laboratory, UPFR Sport, 31, Chemin de l’Epitaphe, 25000 Besançon, France. E-mail: sidney.
grospretre@univ-fcomte.fr

© 2019 European College of Sport Science

2 S. Grosprêtre et al.
activities that include jumping or fast running,
parkour was shown to develop particular leg power
(Puddle & Maulder, 2013). Parkour is a modern
physical activity that consists of using the environ-
ment, mostly urban, as a playground featuring
obstacles. Thus, running through the city and over-
coming walls, fences, or rocks – typical parkour
activity – involves lots of high-drop jumps and plyo-
metric actions. In fact, the traceurs (parkour athletes)
have already demonstrated higher drop jump per-
formance and eccentric forces of the lower limb
than other athletes, such as gymnasts (Grosprêtre &
Lepers, 2016). It has been recently shown that tra-
ceurs exhibited low spinal excitability of the soleus
muscle when compared to untrained individuals,
along with greater central activation (Grosprêtre
et al., 2018). Since parkour also requires particular
power in the arms to overcome high walls in a
dynamic modality (in contrast to, for example, classi-
cal rock climbing), traceurs should also exhibit par-
ticular neuromuscular characteristics of the upper
limb. To date, the concomitant analysis of corticosp-
inal and spinal excitabilities in such power-type ath-
letes has never been performed.
In the present study, two groups were recruited
and compared to each other: a group of well-trained
traceurs and a group of untrained participants with
no past or current intense activity. The aim was
then twofold: (i) to analyse and compare between
the groups’ corticospinal and spinal excitabilities of
upper and lower distal limbs and (ii) to determine if
parkour practice induces similar neural adaptations
in upper and lower limbs. It can be hypothesised,
first, that traceurs may exhibit lower spinal excit-
ability and greater corticospinal excitability than
untrained. Second, we hypothesise that parkour prac-
tice may lead to similar neuromuscular profiles in
upper and lower limbs because this activity involves
upper-limb actions similar to those in the lower limb.
Methods
Participants
Twenty young males took part in the present study.
None of them reported having any neurological or
muscular disorders. After being fully informed
about the investigation and possible related risks
and discomfort, all participants gave written
informed consent to participate in the study. The
research protocol was approved by a regional ethics
committee, and performed in accordance with the
latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Participants were subdivided into two groups: a
group of untrained participants (UT group; n = 10,
age: 24.5 ± 2 years old, height: 175.4 ± 8.9 cm, mass:
70.9 ± 8.7 kg, body mass index: 22.9 ± 1.2) and a
group of power athletes practicing parkour (PK
group; n = 10, age: 23.4 ± 3.4 years old, height: 179 ±
7.1 cm, mass: 75.5 ± 10.6 kg, body mass index: 23.5
± 2.9). An unpaired two-tailed t-test indicated no stat-
istical difference between age and all anthropological
parameters (all P > 0.31). Participants in the PK
group were intensively training in parkour (11.5 ±
3.6 h / week) for 5.5 ± 2.3 years with no noticeable
experience in other sports activities. The UT group
included recreationally active males (less than 2 h of
physical activity/week) with no current or past experi-
ence of power or strength physical activities.
Experimental design
All participants underwent three experimental ses-
sions, carried out on the dominant side (leg and
arm), determined during the first session according
to the items of the revised Waterloo questionnaire
(Elias, Bryden, & Bulman-Fleming, 1998). Overall,
three participants reported a left laterality (foot and
hand): two in the PK group and one in the UT
group. The first session was designed as a familiaris-
ation session of 30 min and included instructions and
a few nerve and cortical stimulations. The two follow-
ing experiments were carried out in sessions of about
2 h. The experimental design is depicted in Figure 1.
Each of the two main sessions was devoted to asses-
sing the neurophysiological parameters of either the
distal lower limb (session A) or upper limb (session
B). For each tested muscle, TMS was used to evoke
the motor evoked potential (MEP) and peripheral
stimulations to evoke H-reflexes and M-waves of
the soleus (SOL), gastrocnemius medialis (GM),
and flexor carpi radialis (FCR) muscles.
Participants were seated in an isokinetic ergometer
chair (Biodex system 4, Shirley, NY), which enables
the recording of instantaneous muscle torque. In
session A, particular care was taken in setting the domi-
nant leg’s hip and knee joints at 90° (0° = full extension)
and ankle joint at 90° (i.e. the angle between the leg and
the sole of the foot). The ankle was firmly strapped to
the dynamometer, with the motor axis aligned with
the external malleolus of the ankle. In session B, the
rotation axis of the dynamometer was aligned with the
styloid process of the ulna. Participants’ hands were
firmly strapped in a neutral position to a homemade
accessory adapted for wrist movement recordings.
The upper arm was vertical along the trunk (shoulder
abduction and elevation angles at 0°) and the forearm
semipronated and flexed at 90°. During all exper-
iments, particular care was taken to monitor the sub-
jects’ posture during the test and to avoid head
rotations in order to maintain constant cortico-

Figure 1. Experimental design. Each illustration depicts the electrode arrangements and isokinetic measures. White circles represent electro-
myographic recording electrodes, while black circles and square represent stimulation electrodes. MVC: Maximal Voluntary Contraction.
ECR: Extensor Carpi Radialis. FCR: Flexor Carpi Radialis. SOL: Soleus. GM: Gastrocnemius Medialis. STIM: stimulation site. MEP:
Motor Evoked Potential.
vestibular influences on the excitability of the motor
pool (Schieppati, 1987). The trunk was stabilised by
two crossover shoulder harnesses, and participants
wore a collar fastened to the seat. The mechanical
signals were digitised online (sampling frequency
5 kHz) and stored for analysis in Tida software (Heka
Elektronik, Lambrecht/Pfalz, Germany).
After each participant’s installation (setting the joint
angles) and preparation (electrode positioning), the
experiment started by determining the participant’s
maximal torque of the targeted limb. First, a brief
warm-up consisting of eight to ten isometric contrac-
tions of progressively increasing force level (from 20%
to 80% of their estimated maximal force) of either the
plantar flexors or the wrist flexors was performed.
Then, participants were asked to perform at least two
maximal voluntary contractions (MVCs) of either the
plantar flexors or the wrist flexor (depending on the
experimental session), separated by few minutes’ rest.
They were asked to reach their maximal isometric
torque by focusing on the considered muscle group.
The torque signal was displayed on a screen to help par-
ticipants understand the task. Further trials were per-
formed if the variation in maximal performance
between these trials exceeded 5%. Participants were
Cortical and spinal excitabilities of power athletes 3
then asked to reach 10% of these MVCs by means of
monitoring the torque signal to record the spinal and
corticospinal responses of the lower and upper-limb
muscles. This procedure is used because TMS rarely
allows the recording of a visible MEP at rest in lower-
limb muscles due to the depth and small size of the cor-
tical motor area for those muscles (Kobayashi &
Pascual-Leone, 2003). Consequently, the MEP of
those muscles is often recorded during a weak voluntary
activation that facilitates their recording (Sacco,
Thickbroom, Thompson, & Mastaglia, 1997).
However, while MEP is easier to record in the upper
limb at rest, the H-reflexes of these muscles are often
facilitated by a submaximal contraction (Pierrot-Deseil-
ligny & Burke, 2005). Accordingly, to standardise all
measurements between the upper/lower limb and corti-
cospinal/spinal responses, all responses were recorded
during weak voluntary plantar or wrist flexions.
Electromyographic (EMG) activity
EMG activity was recorded from three muscles of the
leg (SOL, MG, and tibialis anterior [TA]) and two
muscles of the forearm (FCR and extensor carpi
4 S. Grosprêtre et al.
radialis [ECR]). After shaving and dry-cleaning the
skin with alcohol to ensure low impedance (<5 kΩ),
EMG signals were recorded by using two silver-chlor-
ide surface electrodes (8 mm diameter) placed at an
interelectrode center-to-center distance of 2 cm. Elec-
trode placement was performed according to the
‘Surface Electromyography for the Non-Invasive
Assessment of Muscles recommendations
(Hermens, Freriks, Disselhorst-Klug, & Rau, 2000).
For the SOL, the electrodes were placed 2 cm below
the insertions of the gastrocnemii over the Achilles’
tendon; for the MG, electrodes were placed over the
mid-belly of the muscle; and for the TA, electrodes
were positioned at one-third of the distance on the
line between the fibula and the tip of the medial mal-
leolus. The common reference electrode for lower-
limb measurement was placed in a central position
on the same leg (between stimulation and recording
sites). For the FCR, two electrodes were positioned
over the muscle belly at one-third of the distance
from the medial epicondyle to the radial styloid, and
for the ECR, at one-third of the distance from the
lateral epicondyle and the radial styloid. A common
reference electrode for upper-limb measurements
was placed over the medial epycondyle of the same
arm. EMG signals were amplified with a bandwidth
frequency ranging from 15 Hz to 5 kHz (gain =
1000) then digitised online (sampling frequency:
5 kHz) and stored for analysis with Tida software
(Heka Elektronik, Lambrecht/Pfalz, Germany).
TMS
To elicit the MEP used as an index of corticospinal
excitability, a figure-of-eight-shaped coil (70 mm
loop diameter) was positioned over the controlateral
motor cortex and connected to a stimulator
(Magstim 200, Magstim Company Ltd., Great
Britain). The handle was oriented toward the back
of the head and laterally at a 45° angle, assumed to
be approximately perpendicular to the central sulcus.
First, the optimal spot for eliciting the greatest
MEP, either in the forearm muscle or in the plantar
flexors, was identified. The motor area of each
muscle was stimulated by starting from 1 cm posterior
and 1 cm lateral to the vertex of the subject’s head in
order to find the greatest amplitude for the muscle-
evoked response with the lowest stimulation intensity.
This position was marked on a bathing cap worn by
the participant. The active motor threshold (AMT)
was then determined during weak isometric contrac-
tions of the considered muscles, defined as the
minimal TMS intensity required to evoke MEP
peak-to-peak amplitudes of ∼50 μV in the targeted
muscle on five out of ten consecutive trials (Kobayashi
& Pascual-Leone, 2003). Once the threshold was
determined, stimulation intensity was increased pro-
gressively by increments of 5% of the maximal stimu-
lator output (MSO) until MEP amplitude reached a
plateau of its maximal value. Intensities used to
evoke maximal MEPs were not different between
UT (72.8 ± 13.9%, 84.9 ± 16.6% and 85.9 ± 19.5%
of MSO for FCR, GM and SOL, respectively) and
PK groups (73.4 ± 8.6%, 87.6 ± 13% and 86.4 ±
14.7% of MSO). By means of a monitoring of the
torque signal, participants were asked to reach 10%
of their MVC 2 s before each stimulation and to
hold it for 2 s after. The coil was secured by using a
tripod with a lockable articulated arm distributed by
Otello Factory (T&O brand, France) and oriented
to deliver anterior–posterior-directed current to the
brain. Ten stimulations were delivered to record
each MEP of the several muscles in each experiment.
Nerve electrical stimulation
Peripheral nerve stimulations were used to record H-
reflexes and M-waves of the examined muscles; these
were used as indexes of spinal excitability and neuro-
muscular transmission, respectively. Single rectangu-
lar pulses (1 ms width) were delivered by a high
voltage (400 V) constant-current stimulator (Digiti-
mer model DS7A, Hertfordshire, UK).
In session A, the posterior tibial nerve was stimu-
lated with a self-adhesive cathode (8 mm diameter,
Ag-AgCL) placed in the popliteal fossa and an
anode (5 × 10 cm, Medicompex SA, Ecublens, Swit-
zerland) placed over the patella. In session B, to
evoke FCR H-reflexes, two AgCl surface electrodes
(8 mm diameter) were positioned in line with the
median nerve up to the cubital fossa and below the
biceps muscle belly, with the cathode 2.5 cm proxi-
mal to the anode. Optimal stimulation sites were
first located by a hand-held cathode ball electrode
(0.5 cm diameter) in order to obtain the greatest H-
reflex amplitudes for the lowest stimulation intensity.
During each session, particular care was taken to
avoid EMG responses from the antagonist muscles
(TA and ECR for sessions A and B, respectively) to
the stimulation. This was made possible by checking
antagonist EMG after each stimulation to ensure that
no visible M- or H-wave could be elicited. Once the
optimal sites were determined, stimulation electrodes
were firmly fixed to them with straps.
The electrical stimulus was then increased by 2 mA
increments for the lower limb and 1 mA increments
for the upper limb from the AMT, defined as the
intensity that gave the first responses at ∼50 μV
amplitude, up to the maximal muscular response.
Four responses were first evoked at each intensity,

with an inter-stimuli interval of 10 s. This helped to
find both the intensities that were used in the follow-
ing recordings: the one that elicits maximal H-reflex
(HMAX) and a supra-maximal intensity to record
maximal M-wave (MMAX). This latter, defined as
1.2 × maximal M-wave intensity, was set in order to
ensure that the M-waves lay on the plateau of their
maximal value (Grosprêtre and Martin 2012).
Finally, ten stimulations were evoked for each par-
ameter intended for analysis (HMAX and MMAX).
Data analysis
Peak-to-peak amplitudes of each electromyographic
response (M, H, and MEP) were measured and aver-
aged for the ten trials. It can be noticed that the
maximal H-reflex is generally associated with a
small M-wave (MatH), which was also measured
and taken into consideration for the analysis. Muscu-
lar, spinal, and corticospinal responses were normal-
ised by the maximal M-wave of the corresponding
muscle (MatH/MMAX, H/MMAX, and MEP/MMAX).
For each evoked potential, latencies were measured
as the time interval from the onset of the stimulus arti-
fact to the first peak of the EMG responses. This
method has been used to avoid approximate estimation
of the onset of responses as compared to EMG base-
line. Latencies were then normalised by the height of
each participant (Guiheneuc & Bathien, 1976; Sca-
glioni, Narici, Maffiuletti, Pensini, & Martin, 2003).
The duration of the silent period (SP) of EMG
signals that follows MEP potentials was also assessed.
The SP was measured as the time interval from the
stimulus artifact to the return of continuous EMG.
For each muscle, the end of the SP was determined
as being when the corresponding rectified EMG
activity reached the mean value extended by two stan-
dard deviations of the rectified EMG signal recorded
at rest. Finally, MG, SOL and FCR MEP/H ratios
were compared to measure the relative contribution
of spinal and corticospinal modulations (Duclay,
Pasquet, Martin, & Duchateau, 2014).
Statistical analysis
All data are presented as the mean ± standard devi-
ation. The normality and homogeneity of the data
were verified by the Shapiro–Wilk test (p < 0.05)
and the Levene test, respectively, in order to ensure
that parametric tests could be used. Each muscle
was analysed separately. For each dependent vari-
able, two-tailed Student’s t-tests were performed to
account for inter-group differences. Age, anthropo-
metrics (weight, height, and body composition) and
physical activity level (number of hours per week)
Cortical and spinal excitabilities of power athletes 5
were also compared statistically between the two
groups by two-tailed Student’s t-tests. A two-way
repeated measures ANOVA was performed on
MEP/H ratios with the factors muscle (FCR vs. SOL
vs. GM) and group (PK vs. UT).
Effect size was determined as Cohen’s d index, for
which an absolute value of d below 0.2 was con-
sidered a small effect, between 0.2 and 0.5 as moder-
ate, and above 0.8 and 1.30 as large and very large
effects, respectively (Cohen, 1992). Statistical analy-
sis was performed using STATISTICA (8.0 version,
Statsoft, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA). The level of sig-
nificance was set at P < 0.05.
Results
Lower limb
Maximal plantar flexion torque was statistically higher
(P = 0.027, d = 1.07) in PK (131.63 ± 25.82 N.m)
than in UT (109.06 ± 14.50 N.m). During the 10%
MVC required to elicit the several evoked responses,
RMS/MMAX did not differ between the groups for
SOL (UT: 0.006 ± 0.003, PK: 0.008 ± 0.007, P =
0.48) or for GM (UT: 0.009 ± 0.007, PK: 0.013 ±
0.011, P = 0.31). SOL maximal M-wave (MMAX)
did not differ statistically (P = 0.59, d = 0.24)
between PK (6.49 ± 3.06 mV) and UT (7.29 ±
3.60 mV); nor did GM (PK: 5.69 ± 3.77 mV; UT:
6.44 ± 2.66 mV; P = 0.61, d = 0.23). In addition, no
statistical difference was found in submaximal M-
waves; that is, for MatH/MMAX (all P > 0.35).
SOL H/MMAX was statistically lower in PK than in
UT (P = 0.02, d = 1.06), while MEP/MMAX was not
statistically different between the groups (P = 0.11,
d = 0.57) (Figure 2). A negative correlation (r =
−0.93; P < 0.01) was observed between HMAX/
MMAX and MEP/MMAX for PK (Figure 2) while no
significant relation was found in UT (r = 0.02).
GM H/MMAX was not statistically different between
the groups (P = 0.24, d = 0.53), while MEP/MMAX was
statistically higher in PK than in UT (P = 0.02, d =
0.94) (Figure 2). A negative correlation (r = −0.79; P
< 0.05) was observed between HMAX/MMAX and
MEP/MMAX for PK (Figure 2) while no significant
relation was found in UT (r=−0.41). Traces of two
representative participants are depicted in Figure 3.
Upper limb
Wrist flexion torque was statistically higher for PK
(28.49 ± 2.39 N.m) than for UT (20.65 ± 3.85 N.m,
P = 0.007, d = 2.43). RMS/MMAX recorded during
the 10% MVC did not differ between PK (0.023 ±
0.03) and UT (0.019 ± 0.015) (P = 0.67). FCR
6 S. Grosprêtre et al.

Figure 2. Spinal and corticospinal excitability of plantar flexors in both groups. Responses are depicted for untrained (UT) and Parkour (PK)
groups. A, B, C panels depict soleus responses (SOL), while D, E, F depict gastrocnemius medialis responses (GM). Normalised H-reflex are
depicted in A (SOL) and D (GM); and normalised motor-evoked potentials (MEP) are depicted in B (SOL) and E (GM). ∗ : significant difference
between groups, at P < 0.05. In C and F, the relationship between spinal excitability and corticospinal excitability in PK and UT, respectively.

MMAX did not differ between groups (PK: 3.47 ±
2.53; UT: 3.03 ± 1.81; P = 0.65, d = 0.21). As for
plantar flexors, no statistical difference was found in
MatH/MMAX (P = 0.67).
FCR HMAX/MMAX ratios were not statistically
different between the groups (P = 0.07, d = 0.66),
while FCR MEP/MMAX was statistically (p = 0.04,
d = 0.83) greater in PK than in UT (Figure 4). A
negative correlation (r=−0.74; P < 0.05) was
observed between FCR HMAX/MMAX and MEP/
MMAX for PK (Figure 4), while no significant corre-
lation was found in UT (r = 0.50).
Response characteristics
Regarding the fine parameters of the evoked poten-
tials, shorter latencies of MEP and H-reflexes were
observed in PK than in UT for FCR, SOL, and
GM muscles (Table I). A lower MEP threshold was
also observed in the FCR for PK. A shorter SP was
observed for each of the three muscles (Table I).
Finally, a significant main effect of group was found
on MEP/H ratios (F1,18 = 14.86; P = 0.001; ηP² =
0.45), but muscle did not reveal any effect (F1,18 =
0.043; P = 0.958; ηP² = 0.002). Ratios were statistically
lower in UT (FCR: 0.22 ± 0.15; SOL: 0.17 ± 0.09;
GM: 0.17 ± 0.20) than in PK (FCR: 0.61 ± 0.41;
SOL: 0.61 ± 0.50; GM: 0.62 ± 0.44) for all muscles.
Discussion
The present study aimed to investigate the corticosp-
inal and spinal excitabilities of power athletes inten-
sively practicing parkour and comparing them with
those of untrained individuals, as well as analysing the
balance of these adaptations between upper- and
lower-limb muscles. Greater corticospinal excitability
(MEPMAX/MMAX) in FCR and GM and lower spinal
excitability (HMAX/MMAX) in SOL were observed in
power athletes as compared to untrained. However,
considering the ratio between MEP and H-reflexes,
both corticospinal and spinal excitabilities were simi-
larly balanced between upper- and lower-limb muscles.
Greater corticospinal network activity in parkour
athlete
Given the fact that the potential elicited by TMS is
recorded at the muscle level, such an index of
 Cortical and spinal excitabilities of power athletes 7

Figure 3. Representative traces of motor evoked potentials (MEP), H-reflexes and maximal M-waves. Traces are depicted for two represen-
tative participants of each group: parkour practitioners (PK) and untrained (UT), for flexor carpi radialis (FCR), medialis gastrocnemius
(MG) and soleus (SOL) muscles.

corticospinal excitability may depend upon both cor-
ticospinal and spinal excitabilities (Kobayashi &
Pascual-Leone, 2003). In the present study, the
lower spinal excitability observed in the PK group
in two of the three tested muscles may indicate a
strong cortical influence in the difference between
parkour athletes and untrained that can lead, depend-
ing on the muscle considered, to greater corticospinal
excitability being observed.
The corticospinal excitability of trained individuals
compared to untrained was shown to be either lower
(Pearcey, Power, & Button, 2014) or greater (Fomin
& Seliaev, 2011; Monda et al., 2017). While a
decrease in corticospinal excitability could reflect a
neural economy within the neuronal network of ath-
letes trained to the same task (Falvo, Sirevaag, Rohr-
baugh, & Earhart, 2010), an increase can be
interpreted as an extension of the cortical represen-
tation of the considered muscle with intensive
skilled practice (Pearce, Thickbroom, Byrnes, &
Mastaglia, 2000). Therefore, the sense of the modu-
lation in corticospinal excitability observed in the
8 S. Grosprêtre et al.

Figure 4. Spinal and corticospinal excitabilities of flexor carpi radialis in both groups (Flexor Carpi Radialis, FCR). Panel A depicts normal-
ised H-reflex for untrained (UT) and Parkour (PK) groups. Panel B depicts normalised motor-evoked potentials (MEP) for UT and PK
groups. ∗ : significant difference between groups, at P < 0.05. In C and D, the relationship between spinal excitability and corticospinal excit-
ability in PK and UT, respectively.

literature with long-term sport practice may depends parkour practice, the greater corticospinal excitability
on a great extent to the type of training (Carroll, Sel- of traceurs may reflects their need to handle a great
vanayagam, Riek, & Semmler, 2011). With regard to range of movements given the constant changes in

Table I. Characteristics of motor evoked potentials and H-reflexes in both groups.

FCR SOL GM

UT PK UT PK UT PK

Motor evoked potential

Threshold (% MSO) 55.0 ± 10.2 45.0 ± 6.5∗ 55.3 ± 9.8 51.7 ± 6.1 51.0 ± 6.8 49.8 ± 7.3
Intensity (% MSO) 72.8 ± 13.9 73.4 ± 8.6 85.9 ± 19.5 86.4 ± 14.7 85.0 ± 16.6 87.6 ± 13.3
Latency (ms.m−1) 13.21 ± 1.94 11.85 ± 1.27∗ 24.6 ± 2.5 22.3 ± 1.7∗ 21.8 ± 2.8 19.8 ± 1.1∗
Silent Period (ms) 116.3 ± 11.6 96.0 ± 17.1∗∗ 125.7 ± 27.2 101.7 ± 11.7 ∗ 131.0 ± 22.6 102.1 ± 16.9 ∗∗
H-reflex
Threshold (mA) 4.8 ± 2.2 4.0 ± 1.1 11.7 ± 3.4 12.4 ± 4.1 11.7 ± 3.4 12.4 ± 4.1
Intensity (mA) 8.3 ± 5.5 8.3 ± 4.6 27.9 ± 10.9 27.0 ± 4.9 29.5 ± 11.5 26.5 ± 10.5
Latency (ms.m−1) 11.9 ± 1.3 10.0 ± 1.1∗∗ 21.8 ± 1.7 20.4 ± 0.9∗ 20.5 ± 1.5 19.2 ± 0.6∗

Notes: The several parameters of each type of stimulation and responses (transcranial or nerve stimulations) are given for the three muscles
(FCR: Flexor Carpi Radialis; SOL: soleus; GM: Gastrocnemius Medialis) and for both groups (UT: untrained; PK: Parkour group). The
threshold to obtain these responses are in % of maximal stimulator output (MSO) for the motor evoked potential and in mA for the H-reflex.

environmental constraints (Strafford, van der Steen,
Davids, & Stone, 2018). However, our data suggest
several others factors that may lead to a greater corti-
cospinal excitability. In fact, the ability to produce a
particular power of leg and arms, as it is during
parkour practice, depends upon the faculty to gener-
ate an important cortical output (Weier, Pearce, &
Kidgell, 2012). This latter can be performed by mod-
ifying the balance between facilitatory and inhibitory
processes (Rothwell, Day, Thompson, & Kujirai,
2009). Several studies found a reduced short-interval
intracortical inhibition (usually named SICI), follow-
ing strength (Weier et al., 2012) or skilled training
(Pascual-Leone et al., 1995). Although it has to be
confirmed by using appropriate TMS techniques,
the shorter SP observed in the PK group could be
considered a marker of such specific cortical modu-
lation, such as reduced intracortical inhibition
(Inghilleri, Berardelli, Cruccu, & Manfredi, 1993).
Different balance between spinal and cortical
plasticities between groups
Despite different statistical trends for the MEP and H
results when separately analysed, similar MEP/H
ratios were observed between the lower and upper-
limb muscles. This suggests that the spinal and
supraspinal plasticities were counterbalanced in a
similar manner. In untrained individuals, no differ-
ence was observed in MEP/H ratios between limbs,
in addition to the absence of a relationship between
MEP and H amplitudes, while parkour athletes
demonstrated similar patterns between upper and
lower limbs.
Previous work has demonstrated that parkour ath-
letes exhibited particularly low spinal excitability of
the soleus muscle than in untrained individuals, as
well as a greater volitional wave, or V-wave,,
showing a greater descending neural drive despite a
lower H-reflex (Grosprêtre et al., 2018). Such a low
spinal excitability was attributed to a greater activity
in spinal presynaptic inhibitory pathway that med-
iates Ia afferent discharge or to a shift in motor
units’ typology from slow to fast with power training
(Maffiuletti et al., 2001). Interneuronal circuitry that
mediates spinal presynaptic inhibition was suggested
as one of the main mechanisms for the low spinal
excitability observed in the soleus muscle of power-
type athletes, in contrast to endurance-type athletes
(Fomin, 2009). Nonetheless, many other circuits
can also be involved in spinal characteristics of
power athletes. For instance, we cannot exclude in
the present study a contribution by post-synaptic
mechanisms since H-reflexes were evoked in active
conditions (at 10% MVC), such as recurrent inhi-
bition mediated by the motoneuronal discharge itself.
Cortical and spinal excitabilities of power athletes 9
Despite similar MEP/H ratios, intergroup differ-
ences in spinal or corticospinal excitabilities were
not always statistically identified in all tested
muscles. First, as mentioned in a previous study
with comparable results, variation of spinal excit-
ability from one muscle to another can lead to
several factors, from (i) different responses to training,
or (ii) different density in muscle spindles (Grosprêtre
et al., 2018). Second, because MEP response reflects
both spinal and cortical levels, it can be possible that
the greater difference of spinal excitability observed
in SOL might hide a potential greater cortical excit-
ability in this muscle. Independently of the muscle
tested, the higher MEP/H ratio observed in PK than
in UT might reflect the greater importance of a
spinal excitability decrease despite a greater corticosp-
inal excitability. Interestingly, previous research on
spinal and corticospinal balance showed a higher
MEP/H ratio for the soleus muscle during eccentric
contractions than for other contraction modes
(Duclay et al., 2014). During eccentric contractions,
spinal excitability is particularly decreased due to the
active solicitation of Ia afferents and spinal presyn-
aptic inhibitory circuits during muscle stretch, while
cortical activation seems greater in this modality
(Duclay & Martin, 2005). The cortical-to-spinal
balance observed in traceurs may then originates
from the long-term heavy eccentric training that
parkour represents (Grosprêtre & Lepers, 2016).
Similar corticospinal characteristics of lower and upper
limbs?
The present study also aimed to compare upper- and
lower-limb characteristics with parkour practice. The
results showed similar trends for cortical-to-spinal
balance in upper- and lower-limb muscles of parkour
athletes that may originate from similar characteristics.
In the present study, two distal muscles groups were
assessed. Regarding lower limbs, the triceps surae is
greatly involved in parkour practice. Parkour landing
technique consists of a greater flexion of lower joints,
including the ankle. More importantly the landing on
the forefoot without heel contact on the ground,
specific to parkour technique, forces the triceps surae
to perform an important eccentric action (Maldonado,
Soueres, & Watier, 2018). Regarding upper limbs, one
wrist flexor was assessed. Interestingly, parkour prac-
tice requires the forearm to perform eccentric actions
that can be comparable to those of the lower limbs
during a jump landing. Indeed, parkour often requires
landing on a wall by grabbing the edge with the hands
(Figure 5). For instance, the so-called “arm jump”
requires a significantly eccentric action of the arm to
absorb landing on the wall. Accordingly, other
10 S. Grosprêtre et al.
Figure 5. Illustration of two parkour techniques using wrist flexors
in eccentric and plyometric mode. The first technique, the “kong
jump” require an arm impulse over the obstacle. This necessitates
a brief and explosive contact of the hand over the obstacle to propel
the body. The second technique, the “arm jump”, require to
absorb the fall when landing over a wall with an important eccentric
action of arm muscles.
techniques may also lead to a use of wrist flexors similar
to that of plantar flexors, such as the “kong technique”.
This latter consists of an arm-propelled vault over an
obstacle, using it as a springboard and consequently
needing a plyometric action at wrist level (Figure 5).
Such eccentric and plyometric actions have previously
been identified as a major component of parkour train-
ing in the lower limbs (Grosprêtre & Lepers, 2016). It
is possible that the use of arm muscles in such quadru-
pedal activity, that is, using both upper and lower limbs
in the same contraction mode, may lead to observe
similar neuromuscular characteristics in arm muscles
as in leg muscles. Upper limb specificity may be of a
lower extent, however, given the massive loads that
legs receive during high-drop jump landings.
Study limitations and perspectives
The present study has some limitations. First, the tech-
niques used do not allow deciphering the specific
neural pathways that can be involved in the difference
between both groups. Regarding the spinal level, the
analysis of cervico-medullary evoked potentials could
help assessing directly the motoneuronal pool excit-
ability, while H-reflex reflects the Ia-to-alpha synaptic
transmission and is subjected to presynaptic inhibition
(Taylor, 2006). In addition, the circuits involved in the
particularly low spinal excitabilities could be further
elucidated by conditioning H-reflex methods to inves-
tigate pre- and/or post-synaptic mechanisms, although
hardly manageable in all muscles, particularly those of
the upper limb. At a cortical level the use of condition-
ing paradigms, such as SICI or cortical facilitation,
would be a more accurate technique than the silent
period analysis to decipher the balance between intra-
cortical inhibition and facilitation.
The comparison of upper and lower limb excitabil-
ities with material and methods as used here also
present several limitations. The use of transcranial
magnetic stimulation, particularly with such coil, is
limited in eliciting lower limb MEPs. This usually
does not allow obtaining responses at rest and
hardly with a small facilitation induced by submaxi-
mal plantar flexion (at 10% MVC in the present
study). Associated to the fact that the maximal M-
wave presents, on the contrary, a large amplitude in
the lower limbs, this leads to observe small MEP/
MMAX ratios, limiting the interpretation of corticosp-
inal excitability modulation.
Conclusion
For the first time, both spinal and corticospinal excit-
abilities have been investigated in power athletes, and
for the first time in the upper and lower limbs in the
same experimental study design. The lower spinal
excitability along with a greater corticospinal excit-
ability of parkour athletes indicated a strong cortical
influence ofparkour practice. Overall, a similar
balance between corticospinal and spinal excitabil-
ities was observed in the upper and lower limbs, as
evidenced by similar MEP/H ratios, showing a coun-
terbalance between the two levels. Further studies are
needed to investigate the training-induced adap-
tations of the upper limb that occurs with such a par-
ticular use of the arms during parkour practice.
Finally, these results show that intensive sport prac-
tice can lead to observe different spinal and suprasp-
inal levels characteristics as compared to untrained
participants. It can be argued that such neural profiles
allow athletes to manage more adequately the conflict
between the need to develop high muscular power and
the need to perform fine motor skills.
Acknowledgements
The authors are particularly grateful to the French
Parkour Federation (Fédération de Parkour, FPK)
for its help and support.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
 Cortical and spinal excitabilities of power athletes
ORCID
Sidney Grosprêtre http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1023-
5842
References
Carroll, T. J., Selvanayagam, V. S., Riek, S., & Semmler, J. G. (2011).
Neural adaptations to strength training: Moving beyond transcra-
nial magnetic stimulation and reflex studies. Acta Physiologica,
202(2), 119–140. doi:10.1111/j.1748-1716.2011.02271.x
Casabona, A., Polizzi, M. C., & Perciavalle, V. (1990). Differences
in H-reflex between athletes trained for explosive contractions
and non-trained subjects. European Journal of Applied
Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61(1–2), 26–32.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155–159.
Duclay, J., & Martin, A. (2005). Evoked H-reflex and V-wave
responses during maximal isometric, concentric, and eccentric
muscle contraction. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(5), 3555–
3562. doi:10.1152/jn.00348.2005
Duclay, J., Pasquet, B., Martin, A., & Duchateau, J. (2014).
Specific modulation of spinal and cortical excitabilities during
lengthening and shortening submaximal and maximal contrac-
tions in plantar flexor muscles. Journal of Applied Physiology, 117
(12), 1440–1450. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00489.2014
Elias, L. J., Bryden, M. P., & Bulman-Fleming, M. B. (1998).
Footedness is a better predictor than is handedness of emotional
lateralization. Neuropsychologia, 36(1), 37–43.
Falvo, M. J., Sirevaag, E. J., Rohrbaugh, J. W., & Earhart, G. M.
(2010). Resistance training induces supraspinal adaptations:
Evidence from movement-related cortical potentials. European
Journal of Applied Physiology, 109, 923–933.
Fomin, R. (2009). Presynaptic inhibition of spinal alpha-motoneurons
in athletes adapted to different muscle activity. Journal of Human
Sport and Exercise, 4(1), 20–28. doi:10.4100/jhse.2009.41.03
Fomin, R., & Seliaev, M. V. (2011). [Neuronal adaptation of cor-
ticospinal mechanisms of muscle contraction regulation in ath-
letes]. Fiziologiia Cheloveka, 37(6), 76–88.
Grosprêtre, S., Gimenez, P., & Martin, A. (2018). Neuromuscular
and electromechanical properties of ultra-power athletes: The
traceurs. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 118(7), 1361–
1371. doi:10.1007/s00421-018-3868-1
Grosprêtre, S., & Lepers, R. (2016). Performance characteristics of
Parkour practitioners: Who are the traceurs? European Journal of
Sport Science, 16(5), 526–535. doi:10.1080/17461391.2015.
1060263
Grosprêtre, S, & Martin , A. (2012). H reflex and spinal excitability:
Methodological considerations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 107
(6), 1649–1654. doi:10.1152/jn.00611.2011
Guiheneuc, P., & Bathien, N. (1976). Two patterns of results in
polyneuropathies investigated with the H reflex. Journal of the
Neurological Sciences, 30(1), 83–94.
Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., & Rau, G.
(2000). Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors
and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyography
and Kinesiology, 10(5), 361–374.
Inghilleri, M., Berardelli, A., Cruccu, G., & Manfredi, M. (1993).
Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human
cortex and cervicomedullary junction. The Journal of
Physiology, 466, 521–534.
Kobayashi, M., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2003). Transcranial mag-
netic stimulation in neurology. The Lancet Neurology, 2(3),
145–156.
Lattier, G., Millet, G. Y., Maffiuletti, N. A., Babault, N., & Lepers,
R. (2003). Neuromuscular differences between endurance-
11
trained, power-trained, and sedentary subjects. Journal of
Strength and Conditioning Research, 17(3), 514–521.
Maffiuletti, N. A., Martin, A., Babault, N., Pensini, M., Lucas, B.,
& Schieppati, M. (2001). Electrical and mechanical H(max)-to-
M(max) ratio in power- and endurance-trained athletes. Journal
of Applied Physiology, 90(1), 3–9.
Maldonado, G., Soueres, P., & Watier, B. (2018). Strategies of
Parkour practitioners for executing soft precision landings.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 36(22), 2551–2557.
Monda, V., Valenzano, A., Moscatelli, F., Salerno, M., Sessa, F.,
Triggiani, A. I., … Messina, A. (2017). Primary motor cortex
excitability in karate athletes: A transcranial magnetic stimu-
lation study. Frontiers in Physiology, 8(695), 1–7.
Moscatelli, F., Messina, G., Valenzano, A., Monda, V.,
Viggiano, A., Messina, A., … Cibelli, G. (2016). Functional
assessment of corticospinal system excitability in karate athletes.
PLOS ONE, 11(5), e0155998. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.
0155998
Pascual-Leone, A., Nguyet, D., Cohen, L. G., Brasil-Neto, J. P.,
Cammarota, A., & Hallett, M. (1995). Modulation of muscle
responses evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation during
the acquisition of new fine motor skills. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 74(3), 1037–1045.
Pearce, A. J., Thickbroom, G. W., Byrnes, M. L., & Mastaglia, F.
L. (2000). Functional reorganisation of the corticomotor pro-
jection to the hand in skilled racquet players. Experimental
Brain Research, 130(2), 238–243.
Pearcey, G. E. P., Power, K. E., & Button, D. C. (2014).
Differences in supraspinal and spinal excitability during various
force outputs of the biceps brachii in chronic- And non-resist-
ance trained individuals. PLoS One, 9, 1–10.
Pierrot-Deseilligny, E., & Burke, D. (2005). The circuitry of the
human spinal cord: Its role in motor control and movement disorders.
(E. Pierrot-Deseilligny & D. Burque, Eds.), (Vol. 129). Brain:
Cambridge University Press.
Puddle, D. L., & Maulder, P. S. (2013). Ground reaction forces
and loading rates associated with parkour and traditional drop
landing techniques. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 12
(1), 122–129.
Rothwell, J. C., Day, B. L., Thompson, P. D., & Kujirai, T.
(2009). Short latency intracortical inhibition: One of the
most popular tools in human motor neurophysiology. The
Journal of Physiology, 587(Pt 1), 11–12. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.
2008.162461
Sacco, P., Thickbroom, G. W., Thompson, M. L., & Mastaglia, F.
L. (1997). Changes in corticomotor excitation and inhibition
during prolonged submaximal muscle contractions. Muscle &
Nerve, 20(9), 1158–1166.
Scaglioni, G., Narici, M. V., Maffiuletti, N. A., Pensini, M., &
Martin, A. (2003). Effect of ageing on the electrical and mech-
anical properties of human soleus motor units activated by the
H reflex and M wave. The Journal of Physiology, 548(2), 649–
661. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2002.032763
Schieppati, M. (1987). The Hoffmann reflex: A means of assessing
spinal reflex excitability and its descending control in man.
Progress in Neurobiology, 28(4), 345–376.
Strafford, B. W., van der Steen, P., Davids, K., & Stone, J. A.
(2018). Parkour as a Donor sport for Athletic Development in
Youth Team sports: Insights through an Ecological Dynamics
Lens. Sports Medicine - Open, 4(1), 21. doi:10.1186/s40798-
018-0132-5
Taylor, J. L. (2006). Stimulation at the cervicomedullary junction
in human subjects. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology,
16(3), 215–223. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2005.07.001
Weier, A. T., Pearce, A. J., & Kidgell, D. J. (2012). Strength train-
ing reduces intracortical inhibition. Acta Physiologica, 206,
109–119.