Literature DB >> 33547521

Characterizing off-target corticospinal responses to double-cone transcranial magnetic stimulation.

F Proessl1, M C Canino1, M E Beckner1, A M Sinnott1, S R Eagle1, A D LaGoy1,2, W R Conkright1, A J Sterczala1, C Connaboy1, F Ferrarelli2, A Germain2, B C Nindl1, S D Flanagan3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The double-cone coil (D-CONE) is frequently used in transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) experiments that target the motor cortex (M1) lower-limb representation. Anecdotal evidence and modeling studies have shed light on the off-target effects of D-CONE TMS but the physiological extent remains undetermined.
PURPOSE: To characterize the off-target effects of D-CONE TMS based on bilateral corticospinal responses in the legs and hands.
METHODS: Thirty (N = 30) participants (9 women, age: 26 ± 5yrs) completed a stimulus-response curve procedure with D-CONE TMS applied to the dominant vastus lateralis (cVL) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) recorded in each active VL and resting first dorsal interosseous (FDI). As a positive control (CON), the dominant FDI was directly targeted with a figure-of-eight coil and MEPs were similarly recorded in each active FDI and resting VL. MEPMAX, V50 and MEP latencies were compared with repeated-measures ANOVAs or mixed-effects analysis and Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons.
RESULTS: Off-target responses were evident in all muscles, with similar MEPMAX in the target (cVL) and off-target (iVL) leg (p = 0.99) and cFDI compared with CON (p = 0.99). cFDI and CON MEPMAX were greater than iFDI (p < 0.01). A main effect of target (p < 0.001) indicated that latencies were shorter with CON but similar in all muscles with D-CONE. DISCUSSION: Concurrent MEP recordings in bilateral upper- and lower-extremity muscles confirm that lower-limb D-CONE TMS produces substantial distance-dependent off-target effects. In addition to monitoring corticospinal responses in off-target muscles to improve targeting accuracy in real-time, future studies may incorporate off-target information into statistical models post-hoc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Corticospinal excitability; Lower limbs; Motor cortex; Motor-evoked potentials; Transcranial magnetic stimulation

Year:  2021        PMID: 33547521     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-021-06044-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  53 in total

1.  Topographic mapping of the human motor cortex with magnetic stimulation: factors affecting accuracy and reproducibility.

Authors:  J P Brasil-Neto; L M McShane; P Fuhr; M Hallett; L G Cohen
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1992-02

2.  Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation and computed electric field strength reduce stimulator-dependent differences in the motor threshold.

Authors:  Nils Danner; Petro Julkunen; Mervi Könönen; Laura Säisänen; Jouko Nurkkala; Jari Karhu
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2008-07-11       Impact factor: 2.390

3.  Motor cortical and corticospinal function differ during an isometric squat compared with isometric knee extension.

Authors:  Callum G Brownstein; Paul Ansdell; Jakob Škarabot; Ash Frazer; Dawson Kidgell; Glyn Howatson; Stuart Goodall; Kevin Thomas
Journal:  Exp Physiol       Date:  2018-08-05       Impact factor: 2.969

4.  An optimal protocol for measurement of corticospinal excitability, short intracortical inhibition and intracortical facilitation in the rectus femoris.

Authors:  Callum G Brownstein; Paul Ansdell; Jakob Škarabot; Glyn Howatson; Stuart Goodall; Kevin Thomas
Journal:  J Neurol Sci       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 3.181

5.  Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex.

Authors:  A T Barker; R Jalinous; I L Freeston
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1985-05-11       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Transient alcohol craving suppression by rTMS of dorsal anterior cingulate: an fMRI and LORETA EEG study.

Authors:  Dirk De Ridder; Sven Vanneste; Silvia Kovacs; Stefan Sunaert; Geert Dom
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 3.046

7.  Electric field depth-focality tradeoff in transcranial magnetic stimulation: simulation comparison of 50 coil designs.

Authors:  Zhi-De Deng; Sarah H Lisanby; Angel V Peterchev
Journal:  Brain Stimul       Date:  2012-03-21       Impact factor: 8.955

8.  Into the island: a new technique of non-invasive cortical stimulation of the insula.

Authors:  D Ciampi de Andrade; R Galhardoni; L F Pinto; R Lancelotti; J Rosi; M A Marcolin; M J Teixeira
Journal:  Neurophysiol Clin       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 3.734

9.  Accurate Coil Positioning is Important for Single and Paired Pulse TMS on the Subject Level.

Authors:  Annika A de Goede; Esther M Ter Braack; Michel J A M van Putten
Journal:  Brain Topogr       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.020

10.  Using transcranial magnetic stimulation to map the cortical representation of lower-limb muscles.

Authors:  Jennifer L Davies
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol Pract       Date:  2020-04-29
View more
  2 in total

1.  Use-dependent corticospinal excitability is associated with resilience and physical performance during simulated military operational stress.

Authors:  F Proessl; M C Canino; M E Beckner; W R Conkright; A D LaGoy; A M Sinnott; S R Eagle; B J Martin; A J Sterczala; P G Roma; M N Dretsch; Qi Mi; F Ferrarelli; A Germain; C Connaboy; B C Nindl; S D Flanagan
Journal:  J Appl Physiol (1985)       Date:  2021-12-02

2.  Motor overflow in the lower limb after stroke: Insights into mechanisms.

Authors:  Brice T Cleland; Sangeetha Madhavan
Journal:  Eur J Neurosci       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 3.698

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.