Shahab Jamali1, Bernhard Ross. 1. Rotman Research Institute, Baycrest Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. sjamali@research.baycrest.org
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In non-invasive somatotopic mapping based on neuromagnetic source analysis, the recording time can be shortened and accuracy improved by applying simultaneously vibrotactile stimuli at different frequencies to multiple body sites and recording multiple steady-state responses. This study compared the reliability of sensory evoked responses, source localization performance, and reproducibility of digit maps for three different stimulation paradigms. METHODS: Vibrotactile stimuli were applied to the fingertip and neuromagnetic steady-state responses were recorded. Index and middle fingers were stimulated either sequentially in separate blocks, simultaneously at different frequencies, or in alternating temporal order within a block. RESULTS: Response amplitudes were largest and source localization was most accurate between 21 and 23 Hz. Separation of adjacent digits was significant for all paradigms in all participants. Suppressive interactions occurred between simultaneously applied stimuli. However, when frequently alternating between stimulus sites, the higher stimulus novelty resulted in increased amplitudes and superior localization performance. CONCLUSIONS: When receptive fields are strongly overlapping, the alternating stimulation is preferable over recording multiple steady state responses. SIGNIFICANCE: The new paradigm improved the measurement of the distance of somatotopic finger representation in human primary somatosensory cortex, which is an important metric for neuroplastic reorganization after learning and rehabilitation training.
OBJECTIVE: In non-invasive somatotopic mapping based on neuromagnetic source analysis, the recording time can be shortened and accuracy improved by applying simultaneously vibrotactile stimuli at different frequencies to multiple body sites and recording multiple steady-state responses. This study compared the reliability of sensory evoked responses, source localization performance, and reproducibility of digit maps for three different stimulation paradigms. METHODS: Vibrotactile stimuli were applied to the fingertip and neuromagnetic steady-state responses were recorded. Index and middle fingers were stimulated either sequentially in separate blocks, simultaneously at different frequencies, or in alternating temporal order within a block. RESULTS: Response amplitudes were largest and source localization was most accurate between 21 and 23 Hz. Separation of adjacent digits was significant for all paradigms in all participants. Suppressive interactions occurred between simultaneously applied stimuli. However, when frequently alternating between stimulus sites, the higher stimulus novelty resulted in increased amplitudes and superior localization performance. CONCLUSIONS: When receptive fields are strongly overlapping, the alternating stimulation is preferable over recording multiple steady state responses. SIGNIFICANCE: The new paradigm improved the measurement of the distance of somatotopic finger representation in human primary somatosensory cortex, which is an important metric for neuroplastic reorganization after learning and rehabilitation training.
Authors: Yuan Yang; Teodoro Solis-Escalante; Mark van de Ruit; Frans C T van der Helm; Alfred C Schouten Journal: Front Comput Neurosci Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Olena G Filatova; Yuan Yang; Julius P A Dewald; Runfeng Tian; Pablo Maceira-Elvira; Yusuke Takeda; Gert Kwakkel; Okito Yamashita; Frans C T van der Helm Journal: Front Neural Circuits Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.492
Authors: George C O'Neill; Roger H Watkins; Rochelle Ackerley; Eleanor L Barratt; Ayan Sengupta; Michael Asghar; Rosa Maria Sanchez Panchuelo; Matthew J Brookes; Paul M Glover; Johan Wessberg; Susan T Francis Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2019-01-09 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: William Gaetz; Michael T Jurkiewicz; Sudha Kilaru Kessler; Lisa Blaskey; Erin S Schwartz; Timothy P L Roberts Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: George C O'Neill; Ayan Sengupta; Michael Asghar; Eleanor L Barratt; Julien Besle; Denis Schluppeck; Susan T Francis; Rosa M Sanchez Panchuelo Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 6.556