Literature DB >> 19403741

Reproducible measurement of human motoneuron excitability with magnetic stimulation of the corticospinal tract.

Peter G Martin1, Anna L Hudson, Simon C Gandevia, Janet L Taylor.   

Abstract

It is difficult to test responses of human motoneurons in a controlled way or to make longitudinal assessments of adaptive changes at the motoneuron level. These studies assessed the reliability of responses produced by magnetic stimulation of the corticospinal tract. Cervicomedullary motor evoked potentials (CMEPs) were recorded in the first dorsal interosseus (FDI) on 2 separate days. On each day, four sets of stimuli were delivered at the maximal output of the stimulator, with the final two sets>or=10 min after the initial sets. Sets of stimuli were also delivered at different stimulus intensities to obtain stimulus-response curves. In addition, on the second day, responses at different stimulus intensities were evoked during weak voluntary contractions. Responses were normalized to the maximal muscle compound action potential (Mmax). CMEPs evoked in the relaxed FDI were small, even when stimulus intensity was maximal (3.6+/-2.5% Mmax) but much larger during a weak contraction (e.g., 26.2+/-10.2% Mmax). CMEPs evoked in the relaxed muscle at the maximal output of the stimulator were highly reproducible both within (ICC=0.83, session 1; ICC=0.87, session 2) and between sessions (ICC=0.87). ICCs for parameters of the input-output curves, which included measures of motor threshold, slope, and maximal response size, ranged between 0.87 and 0.62. These results suggest that responses to magnetic stimulation of the corticospinal tract can be assessed in relaxation and contraction and can be reliably obtained for longitudinal studies of motoneuronal excitability.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19403741     DOI: 10.1152/jn.91348.2008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurophysiol        ISSN: 0022-3077            Impact factor:   2.714


  14 in total

1.  The Impact of Stimulation Intensity and Coil Type on Reliability and Tolerability of Cerebellar Brain Inhibition (CBI) via Dual-Coil TMS.

Authors:  Lara Fernandez; Brendan P Major; Wei-Peng Teo; Linda K Byrne; Peter G Enticott
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.847

2.  Four-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation using multiple conditioning inputs. Normative MEP responses.

Authors:  Blair Calancie; Dongliang Wang; Eufrosina Young; Natalia Alexeeva
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Utilizing transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the human neuromuscular system.

Authors:  David A Goss; Richard L Hoffman; Brian C Clark
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 4.  State-of-the-art review: spinal and supraspinal responses to muscle potentiation in humans.

Authors:  Alexander M Zero; Charles L Rice
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Altered activation of the diaphragm in late-onset Pompe disease.

Authors:  Barbara K Smith; Manuela Corti; A Daniel Martin; David D Fuller; Barry J Byrne
Journal:  Respir Physiol Neurobiol       Date:  2015-11-28       Impact factor: 1.931

6.  Neck muscle fatigue impacts plasticity and sensorimotor integration in cerebellum and motor cortex in response to novel motor skill acquisition.

Authors:  Mahboobeh Zabihhosseinian; Paul Yielder; Victoria Berkers; Ushani Ambalavanar; Michael Holmes; Bernadette Murphy
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Determining the number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Rocco Cavaleri; Siobhan M Schabrun; Lucy S Chipchase
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-08-11

8.  Cortical and spinal mechanisms of task failure of sustained submaximal fatiguing contractions.

Authors:  Petra S Williams; Richard L Hoffman; Brian C Clark
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Differences in supraspinal and spinal excitability during various force outputs of the biceps brachii in chronic- and non-resistance trained individuals.

Authors:  Gregory E P Pearcey; Kevin E Power; Duane C Button
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Promoting Motor Cortical Plasticity with Acute Aerobic Exercise: A Role for Cerebellar Circuits.

Authors:  Cameron S Mang; Katlyn E Brown; Jason L Neva; Nicholas J Snow; Kristin L Campbell; Lara A Boyd
Journal:  Neural Plast       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 3.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.