Literature DB >> 29055940

Biological and anatomical factors influencing interindividual variability to noninvasive brain stimulation of the primary motor cortex: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael Pellegrini1, Maryam Zoghi2, Shapour Jaberzadeh1.   

Abstract

Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) modifies corticospinal excitability (CSE) historically in a predictable manner dependent on stimulation parameters. Researchers, however, discuss high degrees of variability between individuals, either responding as expected or not responding as expected. The explanation for this interindividual variability remains unknown with suggested interplay between stimulation parameters and variations in biological, anatomical, and physiological factors. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effect of variation in inherent factors within an individual (biological and anatomical factors) on CSE in response to NIBS of the primary motor cortex. Twenty-two studies were included investigating genetic variation (n=7), age variation (n=4), gender variation (n=7), and anatomical variation (n=5). The results indicate that variation in brain-derived neurotrophic factor genotypes may have an effect on CSE after NIBS. Variation between younger and older adults also affects CSE after NIBS. Variation between age-matched males and females does not affect CSE after NIBS, but variation across the menstrual cycle does. Variation between skull thickness and brain tissue morphology influences the electric field magnitude that ultimately reaches the primary motor cortex. These findings indicate that biological and anatomical variations may in part account for interindividual variability in CSE in response to NIBS of the primary motor cortex, categorizing individuals as responding as expected (responders) or not responding as expected (nonresponders).

Entities:  

Keywords:  brain-derived neurotrophic factor; corticospinal excitability; nonresponder; responder

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29055940     DOI: 10.1515/revneuro-2017-0048

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Neurosci        ISSN: 0334-1763            Impact factor:   4.353


  9 in total

1.  The Influence of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation on Shooting Performance in Elite Deaflympic Athletes: A Case Series.

Authors:  Milan Pantovic; Drazenka Macak; Nebojsa Cokorilo; Sheniz Moonie; Zachary A Riley; Dejan M Madic; Brach Poston
Journal:  J Funct Morphol Kinesiol       Date:  2022-05-25

Review 2.  Noninvasive neuromodulation and rehabilitation to promote functional restoration in persons with spinal cord injury.

Authors:  Jennifer A Iddings; Anastasia Zarkou; Edelle C Field-Fote
Journal:  Curr Opin Neurol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 6.283

Review 3.  Inter-Individual Variability in tDCS Effects: A Narrative Review on the Contribution of Stable, Variable, and Contextual Factors.

Authors:  Alessandra Vergallito; Sarah Feroldi; Alberto Pisoni; Leonor J Romero Lauro
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2022-04-20

4.  Facilitation of Motor Evoked Potentials in Response to a Modified 30 Hz Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation Protocol in Healthy Adults.

Authors:  Katarina Hosel; François Tremblay
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-12-12

5.  Increased Excitability Induced in the Primary Motor Cortex by Transcranial Ultrasound Stimulation.

Authors:  Benjamin C Gibson; Joseph L Sanguinetti; Bashar W Badran; Alfred B Yu; Evan P Klein; Christopher C Abbott; Jeffrey T Hansberger; Vincent P Clark
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 4.003

6.  Long-Term Application of Cerebellar Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Does Not Improve Motor Learning in Parkinson's Disease.

Authors:  Lidio Lima de Albuquerque; Milan Pantovic; Mitchell G Clingo; Katherine M Fischer; Sharon Jalene; Merrill R Landers; Zoltan Mari; Brach Poston
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2021-07-07       Impact factor: 3.648

Review 7.  Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a potential treatment approach for cannabis use disorder.

Authors:  Tonisha Kearney-Ramos; Margaret Haney
Journal:  Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 5.201

Review 8.  Plasticity and dystonia: a hypothesis shrouded in variability.

Authors:  Anna Sadnicka; Masashi Hamada
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Comparative study of motor cortical excitability changes following anodal tDCS or high-frequency tRNS in relation to stimulation duration.

Authors:  Jan Haeckert; Christoph Lasser; Benjamin Pross; Alkomiet Hasan; Wolfgang Strube
Journal:  Physiol Rep       Date:  2020-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.