Literature DB >> 17765606

Differences in after-effect between monophasic and biphasic high-frequency rTMS of the human motor cortex.

Noritoshi Arai1, Shingo Okabe, Toshiaki Furubayashi, Hitoshi Mochizuki, Nobue K Iwata, Ritsuko Hanajima, Yasuo Terao, Yoshikazu Ugawa.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To study differences in the long-term after-effect between high-frequency, monophasic and biphasic repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS).
METHODS: Ten hertz rTMS was delivered over the left primary motor cortex and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous muscle. To probe motor cortex excitability we recorded MEPs at several timings before, during and after several types of conditioning rTMSs. We also recorded F-waves to probe spinal excitability changes. Thousand pulses were given in total, with a train of 10 Hz, 100 pulses delivered every minute (ten trains for 10min). The intensity was fixed at 90% active motor threshold (AMT) or 90% resting motor threshold (RMT) for both monophasic and biphasic rTMS. In addition, we performed a monophasic rTMS experiment using a fixed intensity of 90% RMT for biphasic pulses.
RESULTS: At 90% AMT, MEPs were enhanced for a few minutes after both monophasic and biphasic rTMS. On the other hand, at 90% RMT, a larger and longer enhancement of MEPs was evoked after monophasic rTMS than after biphasic rTMS. Monophasic rTMS at an intensity adjusted to biphasic 90% RMT elicited a great enhancement similar to that after monophasic rTMS at monophasic 90% RMT. Neither F-wave amplitude nor its occurrence rate was significantly altered by 90% RMT monophasic rTMS.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that enhancement after rTMS occurs at the motor cortex. Monophasic rTMS has a stronger after-effect on motor cortical excitability than biphasic rTMS. This is probably because monophasic pulses preferentially activate a relatively uniform population of neurons oriented in the same direction and their effects summate more readily than biphasic rTMS activating differently oriented neurons at slight different timings altogether. SIGNIFICANCE: The present results suggest that when using rTMS as a therapeutic tool or in research fields, the waveforms of magnetic pulses may affect the results profoundly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17765606     DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2007.07.006

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


  19 in total

1.  Bidirectional long-term motor cortical plasticity and metaplasticity induced by quadripulse transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Masashi Hamada; Yasuo Terao; Ritsuko Hanajima; Yuichiro Shirota; Setsu Nakatani-Enomoto; Toshiaki Furubayashi; Hideyuki Matsumoto; Yoshikazu Ugawa
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2008-07-03       Impact factor: 5.182

2.  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

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Quadripulse stimulation (QPS).

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

5.  Enhancement of Neuromodulation with Novel Pulse Shapes Generated by Controllable Pulse Parameter Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation.

Authors:  Stefan M Goetz; Bruce Luber; Sarah H Lisanby; David L K Murphy; I Cassie Kozyrkov; Warren M Grill; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2015-09-01       Impact factor: 8.955

6.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulator with controllable pulse parameters.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; David L Murphy; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 7.  Electroconvulsive therapy stimulus parameters: rethinking dosage.

Authors:  Angel V Peterchev; Moacyr A Rosa; Zhi-De Deng; Joan Prudic; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  J ECT       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.635

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Anxiolytic effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation--an alternative treatment option in anxiety disorders?

Authors:  Peter Zwanzger; A J Fallgatter; M Zavorotnyy; F Padberg
Journal:  J Neural Transm (Vienna)       Date:  2009-01-10       Impact factor: 3.575

10.  Extended remediation of sleep deprived-induced working memory deficits using fMRI-guided transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  Bruce Luber; Jason Steffener; Adrienne Tucker; Christian Habeck; Angel V Peterchev; Zhi-De Deng; Robert C Basner; Yaakov Stern; Sarah H Lisanby
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 5.849

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.