导航经颅磁刺激初级体感觉皮层唤起健康人桡侧腕屈肌的运动电位-一项初步研究

J. Négyesi, Takayuki Mori, Kouta Ataka, S. Izumi, T. Hortobágyi, R. Nagatomi
{"title":"导航经颅磁刺激初级体感觉皮层唤起健康人桡侧腕屈肌的运动电位-一项初步研究","authors":"J. Négyesi, Takayuki Mori, Kouta Ataka, S. Izumi, T. Hortobágyi, R. Nagatomi","doi":"10.20338/BJMB.V14I3.173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although previous studies targeted S1 by TMS to investigate its effect on the corticospinal pathway, there is no evidence if such stimuli produced by TMS would distinctly be restricted to it and not reach M1 interneurons adjacent to S1.Aim: We hypothesized that S1 vs. M1 stimulation-induced MEPs would be similar but smaller and less variable due to the focality of the magnetic pulse, considering that even if TMS is neuronavigated, the magnetic field is not selective enough and reaches M1 interneurons.Method: Healthy volunteers (n = 8, 2 females, age: 29.9 ± 5.49y) received single-pulse TMS over each hemisphere at each intensity of 90, 100, 110, and 120% of rMT in a randomized order. MEPs from the contralateral FCR were recorded.Results: We found no interhemispheric differences, but larger peak-to-peak amplitudes and variability of MEPs after M1 as compared to S1 stimulation. However, latency and waveforms of MEPs did not differ between S1 vs. M1 stimulation supporting the idea that TMS over S1 is not selective enough and can excite M1 interneurons thus producing MEPs on the contralateral FCR.Interpretation: Future studies should carefully consider these results when targeting S1 with TMS even if using a neuronavigation system.","PeriodicalId":91007,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian journal of motor behavior","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex evokes motor potentials in healthy humans’ flexor carpi radialis muscle - A pilot study\",\"authors\":\"J. Négyesi, Takayuki Mori, Kouta Ataka, S. Izumi, T. Hortobágyi, R. Nagatomi\",\"doi\":\"10.20338/BJMB.V14I3.173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although previous studies targeted S1 by TMS to investigate its effect on the corticospinal pathway, there is no evidence if such stimuli produced by TMS would distinctly be restricted to it and not reach M1 interneurons adjacent to S1.Aim: We hypothesized that S1 vs. M1 stimulation-induced MEPs would be similar but smaller and less variable due to the focality of the magnetic pulse, considering that even if TMS is neuronavigated, the magnetic field is not selective enough and reaches M1 interneurons.Method: Healthy volunteers (n = 8, 2 females, age: 29.9 ± 5.49y) received single-pulse TMS over each hemisphere at each intensity of 90, 100, 110, and 120% of rMT in a randomized order. MEPs from the contralateral FCR were recorded.Results: We found no interhemispheric differences, but larger peak-to-peak amplitudes and variability of MEPs after M1 as compared to S1 stimulation. However, latency and waveforms of MEPs did not differ between S1 vs. M1 stimulation supporting the idea that TMS over S1 is not selective enough and can excite M1 interneurons thus producing MEPs on the contralateral FCR.Interpretation: Future studies should carefully consider these results when targeting S1 with TMS even if using a neuronavigation system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91007,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian journal of motor behavior\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian journal of motor behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20338/BJMB.V14I3.173\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian journal of motor behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20338/BJMB.V14I3.173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:虽然以往的研究以经颅磁刺激S1为靶点,研究其对皮质-脊髓通路的影响,但没有证据表明经颅磁刺激产生的刺激是否明显局限于S1,而不到达S1附近的M1中间神经元。目的:考虑到即使经颅磁刺激是神经导航的,磁场也没有足够的选择性,到达M1中间神经元,我们假设S1与M1刺激诱导的mep相似,但由于磁脉冲的聚焦性,其变化较小。方法:健康志愿者(n = 8, 2名女性,年龄:29.9±5.49岁)按随机顺序在每个半球接受90、100、110和120% rMT强度的单脉冲TMS。记录对侧FCR的mep。结果:我们没有发现半球间差异,但与S1刺激相比,M1刺激后MEPs的峰间振幅和变异性更大。然而,在S1和M1刺激之间,mep的潜伏期和波形没有差异,这支持了经颅磁刺激S1的选择性不够,可以激发M1中间神经元,从而在对侧FCR上产生mep的观点。解释:未来的研究在使用经颅磁刺激靶向S1时,即使使用神经导航系统,也应仔细考虑这些结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation of the primary somatosensory cortex evokes motor potentials in healthy humans’ flexor carpi radialis muscle - A pilot study
Background: Although previous studies targeted S1 by TMS to investigate its effect on the corticospinal pathway, there is no evidence if such stimuli produced by TMS would distinctly be restricted to it and not reach M1 interneurons adjacent to S1.Aim: We hypothesized that S1 vs. M1 stimulation-induced MEPs would be similar but smaller and less variable due to the focality of the magnetic pulse, considering that even if TMS is neuronavigated, the magnetic field is not selective enough and reaches M1 interneurons.Method: Healthy volunteers (n = 8, 2 females, age: 29.9 ± 5.49y) received single-pulse TMS over each hemisphere at each intensity of 90, 100, 110, and 120% of rMT in a randomized order. MEPs from the contralateral FCR were recorded.Results: We found no interhemispheric differences, but larger peak-to-peak amplitudes and variability of MEPs after M1 as compared to S1 stimulation. However, latency and waveforms of MEPs did not differ between S1 vs. M1 stimulation supporting the idea that TMS over S1 is not selective enough and can excite M1 interneurons thus producing MEPs on the contralateral FCR.Interpretation: Future studies should carefully consider these results when targeting S1 with TMS even if using a neuronavigation system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Muscle activity increased after co-contraction resistance training, but it was unrelated to the rating of perceived exertion in older adults There is no difference between two and five minutes of static stretching training and detraining on gastrocnemius medialis muscle thickness, pennation angle and fascicle length INFOGRAPHIC: Changes in locomotor performance and postural control in people with hemophilia The complexity of the handgrip task modulates postural performance in older adults How the multiplanar trunk resistance affects the dynamic postural control during single-leg vertical jumps in college athletes with poor movement quality
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1