Literature DB >> 27974446

Desynchronization does not contribute to intracortical inhibition and facilitation: a paired-pulse paradigm study combined with TST.

L Caranzano1,2, M A Stephan1, F R Herrmann3, D H Benninger4.   

Abstract

The paired-pulse (PP) transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) paradigms allow the exploration of the motor cortex physiology. The triple stimulation technique (TST) improves conventional TMS by reducing effects of desynchronization of motor neuron discharges allowing a precise evaluation of the corticospinal conduction. The objective of our study was to explore PP TMS paradigms combined with the TST to study whether the desynchronization contributes to these phenomena and whether the combined TMS-TST protocol could improve the consistency of responses. We investigated the PP paradigms of short intracortical inhibition (SICI) with 2 ms interstimulus interval (ISI) and of intracortical facilitation (ICF) with 10 ms ISI in 22 healthy subjects applying either conventional TMS alone or combined with the TST protocol. The results of the PP paradigms combined with the TST of SICI and ICF do not differ from those with conventional TMS. However, combining the PP paradigm with the TST reduces their variability. These results speak against a contribution of the desynchronization of motor neuron discharges to the PP paradigms of SICI and ICF. Combining the PP TMS paradigm with the TST may improve their consistency, but the interindividual variability remains such that it precludes their utility for clinical practice.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Combining the triple stimulation technique with the paired-pulse stimulation paradigm improves the consistency of short intracortical inhibition and facilitation and could be useful in research, but the interindividual variability precludes their utility for clinical practice. Our findings do not suggest that desynchronization of descending discharges following transcranial magnetic stimulation contributes to short intracortical inhibition or intracortical facilitation.
Copyright © 2017 the American Physiological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  corticospinal excitability; motor-evoked potential; spinal motor neurons; transcranial magnetic stimulation; triple stimulation technique

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27974446      PMCID: PMC5338616          DOI: 10.1152/jn.00381.2016

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


  31 in total

1.  Inter- and intra-individual variability of paired-pulse curves with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

Authors:  Fumiko Maeda; Massimo Gangitano; Mark Thall; Alvaro Pascual-Leone
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.708

2.  Inhibitory conditioning stimulus in transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the number of excited spinal motor neurons.

Authors:  V Mall; F X Glocker; U Fietzek; F Heinen; S Berweck; R Korinthenberg; K M Rösler
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 3.708

3.  TMS and threshold hunting.

Authors:  Friedemann Awiszus
Journal:  Suppl Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2003

4.  Trial-to-trial size variability of motor-evoked potentials. A study using the triple stimulation technique.

Authors:  Kai M Rösler; Denise M Roth; Michel R Magistris
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-01-30       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Repetitive spinal motor neuron discharges following single transcranial magnetic stimulation: relation to dexterity.

Authors:  W J Z'Graggen; A M Humm; S Oppliger-Bachmann; M Hosang; K M Rösler
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2008-05-08       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Variability of motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation.

Authors:  L Kiers; D Cros; K H Chiappa; J Fang
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1993-12

7.  Effect of discharge desynchronization on the size of motor evoked potentials: an analysis.

Authors:  Kai M Rösler; Elisabeth Petrow; Johannes Mathis; Zsuzsanna Arányi; Christian W Hess; Michel R Magistris
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms.

Authors:  Virginia López-Alonso; Binith Cheeran; Dan Río-Rodríguez; Miguel Fernández-Del-Olmo
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 8.955

Review 9.  Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  David H Benninger
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2013

10.  A clinical study of motor evoked potentials using a triple stimulation technique.

Authors:  M R Magistris; K M Rösler; A Truffert; T Landis; C W Hess
Journal:  Brain       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 13.501

View more
  1 in total

1.  Impact of the number of conditioning pulses on motor cortex excitability: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study.

Authors:  Petyo Nikolov; Johanna V Zimmermann; Shady S Hassan; Philipp Albrecht; Alfons Schnitzler; Stefan J Groiss
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 1.972

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.