E P Casula1, L Rocchi2, R Hannah2, J C Rothwell2. 1. Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London, London, United Kingdom; Non-invasive Brain Stimulation Unit, IRCCS Santa Lucia Foundation, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: elias.casula@gmail.com. 2. Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: the influence of pulse width, pulse waveform and current direction on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) outcomes is of critical importance. However, their effects have only been investigated indirectly with motor-evoked potentials (MEP). By combining TMS and EEG it is possible to examine how these factors affect evoked activity from the cortex and compare that with the effects on MEP. OBJECTIVE: we used a new controllable TMS device (cTMS) to vary systematically pulse width, pulse waveform and current direction and explore their effects on global and local TMS-evoked EEG response. METHODS: In 19 healthy volunteers we measured (1) resting motor threshold (RMT) as an estimate of corticospinal excitability; (2) global mean field power (GMFP) as an estimate of global cortical excitability; and (3) local mean field power (LMFP) as an estimate of local cortical excitability. RESULTS: RMT was lower with monophasic posterior-to-anterior (PA) pulses that have a longer pulse width (p < 0.001). After adjusting for the individual motor threshold of each pulse type we found that (a) GMFP was higher with monophasic pulses (p < 0.001); (b) LMFP was higher with longer pulse width (p = 0.015); (c) early TEP polarity was modulated depending on the current direction (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite normalizing stimulus intensity to RMT, we found that local and global responses to TMS vary depending on pulse parameters. Since EEG responses can vary independently of the MEP, titrating parameters of TMS in relation to MEP threshold is not a useful way of ensuring that a constant set of neurons is activated within a cortical area.
BACKGROUND: the influence of pulse width, pulse waveform and current direction on transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) outcomes is of critical importance. However, their effects have only been investigated indirectly with motor-evoked potentials (MEP). By combining TMS and EEG it is possible to examine how these factors affect evoked activity from the cortex and compare that with the effects on MEP. OBJECTIVE: we used a new controllable TMS device (cTMS) to vary systematically pulse width, pulse waveform and current direction and explore their effects on global and local TMS-evoked EEG response. METHODS: In 19 healthy volunteers we measured (1) resting motor threshold (RMT) as an estimate of corticospinal excitability; (2) global mean field power (GMFP) as an estimate of global cortical excitability; and (3) local mean field power (LMFP) as an estimate of local cortical excitability. RESULTS: RMT was lower with monophasic posterior-to-anterior (PA) pulses that have a longer pulse width (p < 0.001). After adjusting for the individual motor threshold of each pulse type we found that (a) GMFP was higher with monophasic pulses (p < 0.001); (b) LMFP was higher with longer pulse width (p = 0.015); (c) early TEP polarity was modulated depending on the current direction (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Despite normalizing stimulus intensity to RMT, we found that local and global responses to TMS vary depending on pulse parameters. Since EEG responses can vary independently of the MEP, titrating parameters of TMS in relation to MEP threshold is not a useful way of ensuring that a constant set of neurons is activated within a cortical area.
Authors: Zhen Ni; Sinisa Pajevic; Li Chen; Giorgio Leodori; Felipe Vial; Alexandru V Avram; Yong Zhang; Patrick McGurrin; Leonardo G Cohen; Peter J Basser; Mark Hallett Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Zhiyong Zeng; Lari M Koponen; Rena Hamdan; Zhongxi Li; Stefan M Goetz; Angel V Peterchev Journal: J Neural Eng Date: 2022-03-17 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Elias Paolo Casula; Maria Concetta Pellicciari; Sonia Bonnì; Barbara Spanò; Viviana Ponzo; Ilenia Salsano; Giovanni Giulietti; Alex Martino Cinnera; Michele Maiella; Ilaria Borghi; Lorenzo Rocchi; Marco Bozzali; Fabrizio Sallustio; Carlo Caltagirone; Giacomo Koch Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Simone Rossi; Andrea Antal; Sven Bestmann; Marom Bikson; Carmen Brewer; Jürgen Brockmöller; Linda L Carpenter; Massimo Cincotta; Robert Chen; Jeff D Daskalakis; Vincenzo Di Lazzaro; Michael D Fox; Mark S George; Donald Gilbert; Vasilios K Kimiskidis; Giacomo Koch; Risto J Ilmoniemi; Jean Pascal Lefaucheur; Letizia Leocani; Sarah H Lisanby; Carlo Miniussi; Frank Padberg; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Walter Paulus; Angel V Peterchev; Angelo Quartarone; Alexander Rotenberg; John Rothwell; Paolo M Rossini; Emiliano Santarnecchi; Mouhsin M Shafi; Hartwig R Siebner; Yoshikatzu Ugawa; Eric M Wassermann; Abraham Zangen; Ulf Ziemann; Mark Hallett Journal: Clin Neurophysiol Date: 2020-10-24 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Nigel C Rogasch; Carl Zipser; Ghazaleh Darmani; Tuomas P Mutanen; Mana Biabani; Christoph Zrenner; Debora Desideri; Paolo Belardinelli; Florian Müller-Dahlhaus; Ulf Ziemann Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 4.379