Annemarie Hübers1, Johannes C Klein1, Jun-Suk Kang1, Rüdiger Hilker1, Ulf Ziemann2. 1. Department of Neurology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Department of Neurology, Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. Electronic address: u.ziemann@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, a link between resting motor threshold (RMT) and local tissue microstructure, as indexed by fractional anisotropy (FA), was demonstrated in large parts of white matter. However, regions showing such correlations were generally found outside of the corticospinal tract (CST). Therefore, the question arises whether other electrophysiologic measurements could be more locally related to microstructural properties of the CST. In this study, we explored the relationship between such measurements and regional FA in a group of healthy volunteers. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that RMT might be more related to an overall susceptibility of white matter to TMS, whereas other electrophysiologic markers might be more specifically related to properties of the CST only. METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects were included. We studied RMT, active motor threshold (AMT), intensity to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) of 1 mV (S1mV), MEP input-output curve (IO-curve), and central motor conduction time (CMCT) using transcranial magnetic stimulation, and FA of the corticospinal tract using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. We performed voxel-wise and TBSS correlation analysis between these electrophysiologic measurements and FA. In addition, we tested for significant correlation between these parameters and mean diffusivity (MD). RESULTS: On voxel-wise analysis, we did not detect significant correlations between any electrophysiologic parameter (RMT, AMT, S1mV, IO curve slope, CMCT) and FA. With TBSS, we detected correlations between FA and bilateral AMT, as well as left-hemispheric S1mV, but these correlations were found in locations unlikely to contribute to motor pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Although a relationship between structure and function has been shown in many other regions of the brain, it seems to be much more challenging to demonstrate such a relationship in the CST of healthy subjects.
BACKGROUND: Recently, a link between resting motor threshold (RMT) and local tissue microstructure, as indexed by fractional anisotropy (FA), was demonstrated in large parts of white matter. However, regions showing such correlations were generally found outside of the corticospinal tract (CST). Therefore, the question arises whether other electrophysiologic measurements could be more locally related to microstructural properties of the CST. In this study, we explored the relationship between such measurements and regional FA in a group of healthy volunteers. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that RMT might be more related to an overall susceptibility of white matter to TMS, whereas other electrophysiologic markers might be more specifically related to properties of the CST only. METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects were included. We studied RMT, active motor threshold (AMT), intensity to evoke a motor-evoked potential (MEP) of 1 mV (S1mV), MEP input-output curve (IO-curve), and central motor conduction time (CMCT) using transcranial magnetic stimulation, and FA of the corticospinal tract using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. We performed voxel-wise and TBSS correlation analysis between these electrophysiologic measurements and FA. In addition, we tested for significant correlation between these parameters and mean diffusivity (MD). RESULTS: On voxel-wise analysis, we did not detect significant correlations between any electrophysiologic parameter (RMT, AMT, S1mV, IO curve slope, CMCT) and FA. With TBSS, we detected correlations between FA and bilateral AMT, as well as left-hemispheric S1mV, but these correlations were found in locations unlikely to contribute to motor pathways. CONCLUSIONS: Although a relationship between structure and function has been shown in many other regions of the brain, it seems to be much more challenging to demonstrate such a relationship in the CST of healthy subjects.
Authors: Xiaoming Du; Peter Kochunov; Ann Summerfelt; Joshua Chiappelli; Fow-Sen Choa; L Elliot Hong Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2016-11-12 Impact factor: 8.955
Authors: Erin Burke; Lucy Dodakian; Jill See; Alison McKenzie; Jeff D Riley; Vu Le; Steven C Cramer Journal: J Neurol Date: 2014-04-12 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Julià L Amengual; Antoni Valero-Cabré; Misericordia Veciana de las Heras; Nurja Rojo; Seán Froudist-Walsh; Pablo Ripollés; Nils Bodammer; Bahram Mohammadi; Jordi Montero; Carles Grau; Thomas F Münte; Antoni Rodríguez-Fornells Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2012-06-08 Impact factor: 2.474