Literature DB >> 10880788

Motor cortex excitability in patients with cerebellar degeneration.

J Liepert1, M Hallett, A Samii, D Oddo, P Celnik, L G Cohen, E M Wassermann.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To study motor cortex (M1) excitability and the effect of subthreshold transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in patients with cerebellar degeneration and normals performing a reaction time (RT) task.
METHODS: Time to wrist flexion after a visual go-signal was measured. TMS was always delivered at 90% of resting motor evoked potential (MEP) threshold. In one experiment, test TMS was delivered at various intervals after the go-signal. In half the trials priming TMS was also given with the go-signal. A second experiment examined the effect on RT of M1 and occipital priming stimulation alone.
RESULTS: M1 excitability, measured as the likelihood of producing MEPs in the wrist flexor muscles, increased immediately after the go-signal in the patients and stayed high until movement. In controls, excitability rose gradually. This difference was largely eliminated by priming TMS. RT was longer in the patient group, but improved with priming TMS. Occipital priming produced less effect on RT than M1 stimulation in both controls (P=0.008) and patients (P=0.0004).
CONCLUSIONS: M1 excitability prior to movement in an RT task increases abnormally early in cerebellar patients. This may reflect compensation for deficient thalamocortical drive. Subthreshold TMS can partially normalize the prolonged RT and abnormal excitability rise in cerebellar patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10880788     DOI: 10.1016/s1388-2457(00)00308-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol        ISSN: 1388-2457            Impact factor:   3.708


  7 in total

Review 1.  Noninvasive brain stimulation in stroke rehabilitation.

Authors:  Brian R Webster; Pablo A Celnik; Leonardo G Cohen
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2006-10

2.  Can cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation become a valuable neurorehabilitation intervention?

Authors:  Hannah J Block; Pablo Celnik
Journal:  Expert Rev Neurother       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.618

3.  Optimizing recovery potential through simultaneous occupational therapy and non-invasive brain-stimulation using tDCS.

Authors:  Dinesh G Nair; Vijay Renga; Robert Lindenberg; Lin Zhu; Gottfried Schlaug
Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.406

4.  Reproducibility of transcranial magnetic stimulation metrics in the study of proximal upper limb muscles.

Authors:  Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian; Sarah M Roelle; Corin E Bonnett; Daniel Janini; Nicole M Varnerin; David A Cunningham; Jennifer S Sharma; Kelsey A Potter-Baker; Xiaofeng Wang; Guang H Yue; Ela B Plow
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2015-06-14       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  Motor cortex excitability in acute cerebellar infarct.

Authors:  William Huynh; Arun V Krishnan; Steve Vucic; Cindy S-Y Lin; Matthew C Kiernan
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.847

6.  Reliability of Motor Evoked Potentials Induced by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: The Effects of Initial Motor Evoked Potentials Removal.

Authors:  Fahimeh Hashemirad; Maryam Zoghi; Paul B Fitzgerald; Shapour Jaberzadeh
Journal:  Basic Clin Neurosci       Date:  2017-01

7.  A higher number of TMS-elicited MEP from a combined hotspot improves intra- and inter-session reliability of the upper limb muscles in healthy individuals.

Authors:  Andisheh Bastani; Shapour Jaberzadeh
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.