Logan T Dowdle1, Truman R Brown2, Mark S George3, Colleen A Hanlon4. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States. 2. Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Center for Biomedical Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Department of Radiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Ralph H Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center, Charleston, SC, United States. 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Department of Neurosciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Center for Biomedical Imaging, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States; Ralph H Johnson Veterans Administration Medical Center, Charleston, SC, United States. Electronic address: hanlon@musc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the 20 years since our group established the feasibility of performing interleaved TMS/fMRI, no studies have reported direct comparisons of active prefrontal stimulation with a matched sham. Thus, for all studies there is concern about what is truly the TMS effect on cortical neurons. OBJECTIVE: After developing a sham control for use within the MRI scanner, we used fMRI to test the hypothesis of greater regional BOLD responses for active versus control stimulation. METHODS: We delivered 4 runs of interleaved TMS/fMRI with a limited field of view (16 slices, centered at AC-PC) to the left DLPFC (2 active, 2 control; counterbalanced) of 20 healthy individuals (F3; 20 pulses/run, interpulse interval:10-15sec, TR:1sec). In the control condition, 3 cm of foam was placed between the TMS coil and the scalp. This ensured magnetic field decay, but preserved the sensory aspects of each pulse (empirically evaluated in a subset of 10 individuals). RESULTS: BOLD increases in the cingulate, thalamus, insulae, and middle frontal gyri (p < 0.05, FWE corrected) were found during both active and control stimulation. However, relative to control, active stimulation caused elevated BOLD signal in the anterior cingulate, caudate and thalamus. No significant difference was found in auditory regions. CONCLUSION(S): This TMS/fMRI study evaluated a control condition that preserved many of the sensory features of TMS while reducing magnetic field entry. These findings support a relationship between single pulses of TMS and activity in anatomically connected regions, but also underscore the importance of using a sham condition in future TMS/fMRI studies.
BACKGROUND: In the 20 years since our group established the feasibility of performing interleaved TMS/fMRI, no studies have reported direct comparisons of active prefrontal stimulation with a matched sham. Thus, for all studies there is concern about what is truly the TMS effect on cortical neurons. OBJECTIVE: After developing a sham control for use within the MRI scanner, we used fMRI to test the hypothesis of greater regional BOLD responses for active versus control stimulation. METHODS: We delivered 4 runs of interleaved TMS/fMRI with a limited field of view (16 slices, centered at AC-PC) to the left DLPFC (2 active, 2 control; counterbalanced) of 20 healthy individuals (F3; 20 pulses/run, interpulse interval:10-15sec, TR:1sec). In the control condition, 3 cm of foam was placed between the TMS coil and the scalp. This ensured magnetic field decay, but preserved the sensory aspects of each pulse (empirically evaluated in a subset of 10 individuals). RESULTS: BOLD increases in the cingulate, thalamus, insulae, and middle frontal gyri (p < 0.05, FWE corrected) were found during both active and control stimulation. However, relative to control, active stimulation caused elevated BOLD signal in the anterior cingulate, caudate and thalamus. No significant difference was found in auditory regions. CONCLUSION(S): This TMS/fMRI study evaluated a control condition that preserved many of the sensory features of TMS while reducing magnetic field entry. These findings support a relationship between single pulses of TMS and activity in anatomically connected regions, but also underscore the importance of using a sham condition in future TMS/fMRI studies.
Authors: D E Bohning; A Shastri; L McGavin; K A McConnell; Z Nahas; J P Lorberbaum; D R Roberts; M S George Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: D E Bohning; A P Pecheny; C M Epstein; A M Speer; D J Vincent; W Dannels; M S George Journal: Neuroreport Date: 1997-07-28 Impact factor: 1.837
Authors: Michael D Fox; Randy L Buckner; Matthew P White; Michael D Greicius; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: V Di Lazzaro; A Oliviero; F Pilato; E Saturno; M Dileone; P Mazzone; A Insola; P A Tonali; J C Rothwell Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 3.708
Authors: Robin F H Cash; Luca Cocchi; Rodney Anderson; Anton Rogachov; Aaron Kucyi; Alexander J Barnett; Andrew Zalesky; Paul B Fitzgerald Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Bruce Luber; Simon W Davis; Zhi-De Deng; David Murphy; Andrew Martella; Angel V Peterchev; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2021-12-30 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Lucia I Navarro de Lara; Laleh Golestanirad; Sergey N Makarov; Jason P Stockmann; Lawrence L Wald; Aapo Nummenmaa Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-01-23 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Stephen J Brandt; Halimah Y Oral; Carla Arellano-Bravo; Martin H Plawecki; Tom A Hummer; Michael M Francis Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 7.620