Literature DB >> 15721074

Comparison between short train, monophasic and biphasic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the human motor cortex.

Noritoshi Arai1, Shingo Okabe, Toshiaki Furubayashi, Yasuo Terao, Kaoru Yuasa, Yoshikazu Ugawa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by short train, monophasic, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulations (rTMS) with those by short train, biphasic rTMS.
METHODS: Subjects were 13 healthy volunteers. Surface electromyographic (EMG) responses were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI) in several different stimulation conditions. We gave both monophasic and biphasic rTMS over the motor cortex at a frequency of 0.5, 1, 2 or 3Hz. To study excitability changes of the spinal cord, we also performed 3Hz rTMS at the foramen magnum level [Ugawa Y, Uesaka Y, Terao Y, Hanajima R, Kanazawa I. Magnetic stimulation of corticospinal pathways at the foramen magnum level in humans. Ann Neurol 1994;36:618-24]. We measured the size and latency of each of 20 MEPs recorded in the different stimulation conditions.
RESULTS: 2 or 3Hz stimulation with either monophasic or biphasic pulses evoked MEPs that gradually increased in amplitude with the later MEPs being significantly larger than the earlier ones. Monophasic rTMS showed much more facilitation than biphasic stimulation, particularly at 3Hz. Stimulation at the foramen magnum level at 3Hz elicited fairly constant MEPs.
CONCLUSIONS: The enhancement of cortical MEPs with no changes of responses to foramen magnum level stimulation suggests that the facilitation occurred at the motor cortex. We hypothesize that monophasic TMS has a stronger short-term effect during repetitive stimulation than biphasic TMS because monophasic pulses preferentially activate one population of neurons oriented in the same direction so that their effects readily summate. Biphasic pulses in contrast may activate several different populations of neurons (both facilitatory and inhibitory) so that summation of the effects is not so clear as with monophasic pulses. When single stimuli are applied, however, biphasic TMS is thought to be more powerful than monophasic TMS because the peak-to-peak amplitude of stimulus pulse is higher and its duration is longer when the same intensity of stimulation (the same amount of current is stored by the stimulator) is used. SIGNIFICANCE: This means that when using rTMS as a therapeutic tool or in research fields, the difference in waveforms of magnetic pulses (monophasic or biphasic) may affect the results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15721074     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2004.09.020

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


  28 in total

1.  High-frequency focal repetitive cerebellar stimulation induces prolonged increases in human pharyngeal motor cortex excitability.

Authors:  Dipesh H Vasant; Emilia Michou; Satish Mistry; John C Rothwell; Shaheen Hamdy
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  Orientation-specific fast rTMS maximizes corticospinal inhibition and facilitation.

Authors:  Tobias Tings; Nicolas Lang; Frithjof Tergau; Walter Paulus; Martin Sommer
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-05-03       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Effects of repetitive TMS on visually evoked potentials and EEG in the anaesthetized cat: dependence on stimulus frequency and train duration.

Authors:  Selcen Aydin-Abidin; Vera Moliadze; Ulf T Eysel; Klaus Funke
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2006-05-11       Impact factor: 5.182

4.  A transcranial magnetic stimulator inducing near-rectangular pulses with controllable pulse width (cTMS).

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Reza Jalinous; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  IEEE Trans Biomed Eng       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.538

5.  Evoked potentials in large-scale cortical networks elicited by TMS of the visual cortex.

Authors:  Javier O Garcia; Emily D Grossman; Ramesh Srinivasan
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2011-06-29       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  Evidence for Subcortical Plasticity after Paired Stimulation from a Wearable Device.

Authors:  Maria Germann; Stuart N Baker
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 6.167

Review 7.  The development and modelling of devices and paradigms for transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Zhi-De Deng
Journal:  Int Rev Psychiatry       Date:  2017-04-26

8.  Changes in motor-evoked potential latency during grasping after tetraplegia.

Authors:  Hang Jin Jo; Monica A Perez
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2019-01-23       Impact factor: 2.714

Review 9.  Quadripulse stimulation (QPS).

Authors:  Hideyuki Matsumoto; Yoshikazu Ugawa
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-24       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 10.  Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Simone Rossi; Mark Hallett; Paolo M Rossini; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.708

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.