JoVE Journal > Neuroscience
Summary
Abstract
Introduction
Protocol
Results
Discussion
Disclosures
Acknowledgements
Materials
References
Please note that all translations are automatically generated. Click here for the English version.
신경과학

导航经颅磁刺激踝关节脊椎通路的双边评价

Published: February 19, 2019
doi:
10.3791/58944
, , , ,
1Department of Neurology,New York University School of Medicine, 2Department of Health Sciences and Research,Medical University of South Carolina, 3Department of Physical Therapy,University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4Department of Health Professions,Medical University of South Carolina, 5Ralph H. Johnson VA Medical Center, 6Department of Psychiatry,Medical University of South Carolina, 7Division of Physical Therapy,Medical University of South Carolina

Summary

本协议描述了使用单脉冲经颅磁刺激和神经导航在休息和补体自愿激活过程中对胫骨前部和单索的皮质细胞反应的同时双边评估系统。

Abstract

远端腿部肌肉通过皮质脊髓道接收来自运动皮质区域的神经输入, 皮质脊髓道是人类运动下降的主要途径之一, 可以使用经颅磁刺激 (tms) 进行评估。考虑到远端腿部肌肉在直立姿势和动态任务 (如行走) 中的作用, 在过去十年中, 人们对相对于这些肌肉的功能的皮质边缘区域的评估和调节产生了越来越大的研究兴趣。然而, 以往工作中使用的方法参数因研究而异, 因此对横断面和纵向研究结果的解释不那么有力。因此, 使用专门用于评估腿部肌肉皮质反应 (cmr) 的标准化 tms 协议, 将可以直接比较不同研究和队列的结果。本文的目的是提出一个协议, 提供了一个灵活的同时评估双侧 cmr 的两个主要踝关节拮抗肌肉, 胫骨前肌和单索, 使用单脉冲 tms 与神经导航系统。本协议适用于被检查的肌肉完全放松或等距收缩在最大等距自愿收缩的规定百分比。使用每个对象的结构 mri 与神经导航系统, 确保准确和准确地定位线圈在腿皮质表示在评估过程中。鉴于 cmr 衍生度量值的不一致, 该协议还描述了使用自动算法对这些度量值进行标准化计算的方法。虽然这种协议不是在直立的姿势或动态任务中进行的, 但它可以用来双边评估任何一对腿部肌肉, 无论是对抗的还是协同的, 在神经完整和受损的对象。

Introduction

胫骨前部 (ta) 和单侧肌 (sol) 分别位于小腿前、后室。两种肌肉均为单关节, 而 ta 和 sol 的主要功能分别是背侧和扁平关节, 分别为1。此外, ta 是更有效的长肌肉出游和不太重要的力量生产, 而 sol 是一个反重力肌肉设计产生高力与肌肉2的小偏移.在直立的姿势和动态任务 (如步行)3, 4 时, 两种肌肉尤其重要。关于神经控制, 两个肌肉的摩托车池通过运动下降路径5, 6,以及不同程度的感觉驱动从大脑接受神经驱动。

主要运动下降途径是皮质脊髓道, 它起源于原发、前运动和辅助运动区域, 并在脊髓运动神经元池7,8终止。在人类中, 可以利用经颅磁刺激 (tms) (一种非侵入性脑刺激工具 9,10) 来评估这一通道的功能状态。自 tms 引入以来, 并考虑到其在直立姿势任务和行走过程中的功能意义, 对 ta 和 sol 的 cmr 进行了不同队列和任务11、12、13、14的评估. ,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22,23 , 24、25、26、27、28、29、30、31、32.

与上肢肌肉33中 cmr的评估不同, 目前还没有建立通用的 tms 协议来评估下肢肌肉中的 cmr。由于缺乏既定的协议和以前研究的方法差异很大 (例如,线圈的类型、神经导航的使用、补体激活水平、测试方面和肌肉、cmr 措施的使用和计算等)。), 对研究和队列中结果的解释可能是繁琐、复杂和不准确的。由于这些措施在功能上与各种运动任务相关, 针对下肢 cmr 评估的既定 tms 协议将使运动神经科学家和康复科学家能够系统地评估这些肌肉中的 cmr。会议和各种队列。

因此, 本协议的目的是描述使用单脉冲 tms 和神经导航系统对 ta 和 sol cmr 的双边评估。与以往的工作不同, 该协议旨在最大限度地提高实验程序、数据采集和数据分析的严谨性, 方法要素优化实验的有效性和持续时间, 并使 cmr 标准化评估这两个下肢肌肉。鉴于肌肉的 cmr 取决于肌肉是否完全放松或部分激活, 该协议描述了如何在休息和补体自愿激活 (tonic) 期间评估 ta 和 sol cmr。以下各节将全面介绍本议定书。最后, 将介绍和讨论具有代表性的数据。这里所描述的议定书来自 charalambous等人的议定书, 2018年32.

Protocol

本议定书中提出的所有试验程序都已得到地方机构审查委员会的批准, 并符合《赫尔辛基宣言》。 1. 同意流程和安全问卷 在任何实验之前, 向每个科目解释研究的目的、主要实验程序以及与参与研究有关的任何潜在风险因素。在回答主体可能有的任何问题或关切后, 要求主体承认同意程序, 并签署知情同意书。 管理 mri34和 tms35份</…

Representative Results

图 2-4显示了一位具有代表性的神经完整的31岁男性的数据, 身高和体重分别为178厘米和83公斤。 图 2显示了每个踝关节肌肉的双侧热点和 rmt。利用位于每个半球腿部区域中心的位置 (参见图 1 b 中的正方形), 45% mso 的强度被双边用于热点狩猎。每个肌肉的热点位置在半球之间不同, 但不出所料, 这四个热点都位于腿部运动皮质区域。这一发现…

Discussion

鉴于人们对运动皮层如何在不同队列的动态任务中对腿部肌肉的运动控制产生了兴趣, 因此需要一个标准化的 tms 协议来描述对这些肌肉的彻底评估。因此, 本协议首次提供了标准化的方法程序, 用于在两个肌肉状态 (休息和 tva) 中使用带有神经导航的单脉冲 tms 对两个踝关节对抗肌肉 (sol 和 ta) 进行双边评估。

代表性成果部分所述的调查结果指出了应考虑的几个关键步骤。首先…

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

作者感谢 jesse c. dean 博士帮助方法的发展, 并提供了对手稿草稿的反馈。这项工作得到了 va 职业发展奖-2 rr & d n077-w (mgb) 的支持, 该奖项是国家卫生研究院国家普通医学研究所的机构发展奖, 赠款号为 p20-gm1090 (sak) 和 P2CHD086844 (sak)。内容并不代表退伍军人事务部或美国政府的意见。

Materials

2 Magstim stimulators (Bistim module) The Magstim Company Limited; Whitland, UK Used to elicit bilateral motor evoked potentials in tibialis anterior and soleus muscles.
Adaptive parameter estimation by sequential testing (PEST) for TMS http://www.clinicalresearcher.org/software.htm Used to determine motor thresholds.
Amplifier Motion Lab Systems; Baton Rouge, LN, USA MA-300 Used to amplify EMG data.
Data Aqcuisition Unit Motion Lab Systems; Baton Rouge, LN, USA Micro 1401 Used to aqcuire EMG data.
Double cone coil The Magstim Company Limited; Whitland, UK PN: 9902AP Used to elicit bilateral motor evoked potentials in tibialis anterior and soleus muscles.
Polaris Northen Digital Inc.; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Used to track the reflectiive markers located on subject tracker and coil tracker.
Signal Cambridge Electronics Design Limited; Cambridge, UK version 6 Used to collect motor evoked potentials during rest and TVA.
Single double differential surface EMG electrodes Motion Lab Systems; Baton Rouge, LN, USA MA-411 Used to record EMG signals.
TMS Frameless Stereotaxy Neuronavigation Sytem Brainsight 3, Rouge Research,
Montreal, Canada		 Used to navigate coil position during TMS assessment.
Walker boot Mountainside Medical Equipment, Marcy, NY Used to stabilize ankle joint.
DOWNLOAD MATERIALS LIST

References

  1. Schünke, M., Schulte, E., Ross, L. M., Schumacher, U., Lamperti, E. D. . Thieme Atlas of Anatomy: General Anatomy and Musculoskeletal System. , (2006).
  2. Lieber, R. L., Friden, J. Functional and clinical significance of skeletal muscle architecture. Muscle Nerve. 23 (11), 1647-1666 (2000).
  3. Winter, D. A. . The biomechanics and motor control of human gait: Normal, Elderly and Pathological. , (1991).
  4. Winter, D. A. . A.B.C. (anatomy, Biomechanics and Control) of Balance During Standing and Walking. , (1995).
  5. Nielsen, J. B. Motoneuronal drive during human walking. Brain Research Reviews. 40 (1-3), 192-201 (2002).
  6. Nielsen, J. B. How we walk: central control of muscle activity during human walking. Neuroscientist. 9 (3), 195-204 (2003).
  7. Davidoff, R. A. The pyramidal tract. Neurology. 40 (2), 332-339 (1990).
  8. Nathan, P. W., Smith, M. C., Deacon, P. The corticospinal tracts in man. Course and location of fibres at different segmental levels. Brain. 113 (Pt 2), 303-324 (1990).
  9. Hallett, M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the human brain. Nature. 406 (6792), 147-150 (2000).
  10. Hallett, M. Transcranial magnetic stimulation: a primer. Neuron. 55 (2), 187-199 (2007).
  11. Brouwer, B., Ashby, P., Midroni, G. Excitability of corticospinal neurons during tonic muscle contractions in man. Experimental Brain Research. 74 (3), 649-652 (1989).
  12. Advani, A., Ashby, P. Corticospinal control of soleus motoneurons in man. Canadian Journal Physiology and Pharmacology. 68 (9), 1231-1235 (1990).
  13. Holmgren, H., Larsson, L. E., Pedersen, S. Late muscular responses to transcranial cortical stimulation in man. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 75 (3), 161-172 (1990).
  14. Ackermann, H., Scholz, E., Koehler, W., Dichgans, J. Influence of posture and voluntary background contraction upon compound muscle action potentials from anterior tibial and soleus muscle following transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 81 (1), 71-80 (1991).
  15. Brouwer, B., Ashby, P. Corticospinal projections to lower limb motoneurons in man. Experimental Brain Research. 89 (3), 649-654 (1992).
  16. Priori, A., et al. Transcranial electric and magnetic stimulation of the leg area of the human motor cortex: single motor unit and surface EMG responses in the tibialis anterior muscle. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section. 89 (2), 131-137 (1993).
  17. Valls-Sole, J., Alvarez, R., Tolosa, E. S. Responses of the soleus muscle to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 93 (6), 421-427 (1994).
  18. Brouwer, B., Qiao, J. Characteristics and variability of lower limb motoneuron responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 97 (1), 49-54 (1995).
  19. Devanne, H., Lavoie, B. A., Capaday, C. Input-output properties and gain changes in the human corticospinal pathway. Experimental Brain Research. 114 (2), 329-338 (1997).
  20. Capaday, C., Lavoie, B. A., Barbeau, H., Schneider, C., Bonnard, M. Studies on the corticospinal control of human walking. I. Responses to focal transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology. 81 (1), 129-139 (1999).
  21. Terao, Y., et al. Predominant activation of I1-waves from the leg motor area by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Research. 859 (1), 137-146 (2000).
  22. Christensen, L. O., Andersen, J. B., Sinkjaer, T., Nielsen, J. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and stretch reflexes in the tibialis anterior muscle during human walking. Journal of Physiology. 531 (Pt 2), 545-557 (2001).
  23. Bawa, P., Chalmers, G. R., Stewart, H., Eisen, A. A. Responses of ankle extensor and flexor motoneurons to transcranial magnetic stimulation). Journal of Neurophysiology. 88 (1), 124-132 (2002).
  24. Soto, O., Valls-Sole, J., Shanahan, P., Rothwell, J. Reduction of intracortical inhibition in soleus muscle during postural activity. Journal of Neurophysiology. 96 (4), 1711-1717 (2006).
  25. Barthelemy, D., et al. Impaired transmission in the corticospinal tract and gait disability in spinal cord injured persons. Journal of Neurophysiology. 104 (2), 1167-1176 (2010).
  26. Barthelemy, D., et al. Functional implications of corticospinal tract impairment on gait after spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord. 51 (11), 852-856 (2013).
  27. Beaulieu, L. D., Masse-Alarie, H., Brouwer, B., Schneider, C. Brain control of volitional ankle tasks in people with chronic stroke and in healthy individuals. Journal of Neurological Science. 338 (1-2), 148-155 (2014).
  28. Palmer, J. A., Hsiao, H., Awad, L. N., Binder-Macleod, S. A. Symmetry of corticomotor input to plantarflexors influences the propulsive strategy used to increase walking speed post-stroke. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127 (3), 1837-1844 (2016).
  29. Palmer, J. A., Needle, A. R., Pohlig, R. T., Binder-Macleod, S. A. Atypical cortical drive during activation of the paretic and nonparetic tibialis anterior is related to gait deficits in chronic stroke. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127 (1), 716-723 (2016).
  30. Palmer, J. A., Hsiao, H., Wright, T., Binder-Macleod, S. A. Single Session of Functional Electrical Stimulation-Assisted Walking Produces Corticomotor Symmetry Changes Related to Changes in Poststroke Walking Mechanics. Physical Therapy. , (2017).
  31. Palmer, J. A., Zarzycki, R., Morton, S. M., Kesar, T. M., Binder-Macleod, S. A. Characterizing differential poststroke corticomotor drive to the dorsi- and plantarflexor muscles during resting and volitional muscle activation. Journal of Neurophysiology. 117 (4), 1615-1624 (2017).
  32. Charalambous, C. C., Dean, J. C., Adkins, D. L., Hanlon, C. A., Bowden, M. G. Characterizing the corticomotor connectivity of the bilateral ankle muscles during rest and isometric contraction in healthy adults. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 41, 9-18 (2018).
  33. Kleim, J. A., Kleim, E. D., Cramer, S. C. Systematic assessment of training-induced changes in corticospinal output to hand using frameless stereotaxic transcranial magnetic stimulation. Nature Protocols. 2 (7), 1675-1684 (2007).
  34. Shellock, F. G., Spinazzi, A. MRI safety update 2008: part 2, screening patients for MRI. American Journal of Roentgenology. 191 (4), 1140-1149 (2008).
  35. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A. Screening questionnaire before TMS: an update. Clinical Neurophysiology. 122 (8), 1686 (2011).
  36. Conti, A., et al. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation for "somatotopic" tractography of the corticospinal tract. Neurosurgery. 10, 542-554 (2014).
  37. Comeau, R. . Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. , 31-56 (2014).
  38. Cram, J. R., Criswell, E. . Cram’s Introduction to Surface Electromyography. , (2011).
  39. Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Merletti, R., Stegeman, D., Blok, J., Rau, G., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Hagg, G. . European Recommendations for Surface ElectroMyoGraphy: Results of the Seniam Project (SENIAM). , (1999).
  40. Awiszus, F. TMS and threshold hunting. Supplements to Clinical Neurophysiology. 56, 13-23 (2003).
  41. Sinclair, C., Faulkner, D., Hammond, G. Flexible real-time control of MagStim 200(2) units for use in transcranial magnetic stimulation studies. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 158 (2), 133-136 (2006).
  42. Alkadhi, H., et al. Reproducibility of primary motor cortex somatotopy under controlled conditions. American Journal of Neuroradiology. 23 (9), 1524-1532 (2002).
  43. Rossini, P. M., et al. Applications of magnetic cortical stimulation. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement. 52, 171-185 (1999).
  44. Borckardt, J. J., Nahas, Z., Koola, J., George, M. S. Estimating resting motor thresholds in transcranial magnetic stimulation research and practice: a computer simulation evaluation of best methods. Journak for ECT. 22 (3), 169-175 (2006).
  45. Livingston, S. C., Friedlander, D. L., Gibson, B. C., Melvin, J. R. Motor evoked potential response latencies demonstrate moderate correlations with height and limb length in healthy young adults. The Neurodiagnostic Journal. 53 (1), 63-78 (2013).
  46. Cacchio, A., et al. Reliability of TMS-related measures of tibialis anterior muscle in patients with chronic stroke and healthy subjects. Journal of Neurological Science. 303 (1-2), 90-94 (2011).
  47. Saisanen, L., et al. Factors influencing cortical silent period: optimized stimulus location, intensity and muscle contraction. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 169 (1), 231-238 (2008).
  48. Ertekin, C., et al. A stable late soleus EMG response elicited by cortical stimulation during voluntary ankle dorsiflexion. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Electromyography and Motor Control. 97 (5), 275-283 (1995).
  49. Tarkka, I. M., McKay, W. B., Sherwood, A. M., Dimitrijevic, M. R. Early and late motor evoked potentials reflect preset agonist-antagonist organization in lower limb muscles. Muscle Nerve. 18 (3), 276-282 (1995).
  50. Ziemann, U., et al. Dissociation of the pathways mediating ipsilateral and contralateral motor-evoked potentials in human hand and arm muscles. Journal of Physiology. 518 (Pt 3), 895-906 (1999).
  51. McCambridge, A. B., Stinear, J. W., Byblow, W. D. Are ipsilateral motor evoked potentials subject to intracortical inhibition?. Journal of Neurophysiology. 115 (3), 1735-1739 (2016).
  52. Tazoe, T., Perez, M. A. Selective activation of ipsilateral motor pathways in intact humans. Journal of Neuroscience. 34 (42), 13924-13934 (2014).
  53. Chen, R., Yung, D., Li, J. Y. Organization of ipsilateral excitatory and inhibitory pathways in the human motor cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology. 89 (3), 1256-1264 (2003).
  54. Wassermann, E. M., Pascual-Leone, A., Hallett, M. Cortical motor representation of the ipsilateral hand and arm. Experimental Brain Research. 100 (1), 121-132 (1994).
  55. Kesar, T. M., Stinear, J. W., Wolf, S. L. The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to evaluate cortical excitability of lower limb musculature: Challenges and opportunities. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 36 (3), 333-348 (2018).
  56. Lefaucheur, J. P. Why image-guided navigation becomes essential in the practice of transcranial magnetic stimulation. Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology. 40 (1), 1-5 (2010).
  57. Sparing, R., Hesse, M. D., Fink, G. R. Neuronavigation for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): where we are and where we are going. Cortex. 46 (1), 118-120 (2010).
  58. Sparing, R., Buelte, D., Meister, I. G., Pauš, T., Fink, G. R. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and the challenge of coil placement: a comparison of conventional and stereotaxic neuronavigational strategies. Human Brain Mapping. 29 (1), 82-96 (2008).
  59. Gugino, L. D., et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation coregistered with MRI: a comparison of a guided versus blind stimulation technique and its effect on evoked compound muscle action potentials. Clinical Neurophysiology. 112 (10), 1781-1792 (2001).
  60. Jung, N. H., et al. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation does not decrease the variability of motor-evoked potentials. Brain Stimulation. 3 (2), 87-94 (2010).
  61. Terao, Y., Ugawa, Y. Basic mechanisms of TMS. J Clin Neurophysiol. 19 (4), 322-343 (2002).
  62. Madhavan, S., Rogers, L. M., Stinear, J. W. A paradox: after stroke, the non-lesioned lower limb motor cortex may be maladaptive. European Journal of Neuroscience. 32 (6), 1032-1039 (2010).
  63. Kujirai, T., et al. Corticocortical inhibition in human motor cortex. Journal of Physiology. 471, 501-519 (1993).
  64. Ziemann, U. Intracortical inhibition and facilitation in the conventional paired TMS paradigm. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement. 51, 127-136 (1999).
  65. Cavaleri, R., Schabrun, S. M., Chipchase, L. S. The number of stimuli required to reliably assess corticomotor excitability and primary motor cortical representations using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews. 6 (1), 48 (2017).
  66. Goldsworthy, M. R., Hordacre, B., Ridding, M. C. Minimum number of trials required for within- and between-session reliability of TMS measures of corticospinal excitability. 신경과학. 320, 205-209 (2016).
  67. Cavaleri, R., Schabrun, S. M., Chipchase, L. S. Determining the Optimal Number of Stimuli per Cranial Site during Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Mapping. Neuroscience Journal. 2017, 6328569 (2017).
  68. Groppa, S., et al. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 123 (5), 858-882 (2012).
  69. Rossini, P. M., et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 91 (2), 79-92 (1994).
  70. Rothwell, J. C., et al. Magnetic stimulation: motor evoked potentials. The International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology Supplement. 52, 97-103 (1999).
  71. Silbert, B. I., Patterson, H. I., Pevcic, D. D., Windnagel, K. A., Thickbroom, G. W. A comparison of relative-frequency and threshold-hunting methods to determine stimulus intensity in transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology. 124 (4), 708-712 (2013).
  72. Obata, H., Sekiguchi, H., Nakazawa, K., Ohtsuki, T. Enhanced excitability of the corticospinal pathway of the ankle extensor and flexor muscles during standing in humans. Experimental Brain Research. 197 (3), 207-213 (2009).
  73. Tokuno, C. D., Taube, W., Cresswell, A. G. An enhanced level of motor cortical excitability during the control of human standing. Acta Physiological (Oxf). 195 (3), 385-395 (2009).
  74. Obata, H., Sekiguchi, H., Ohtsuki, T., Nakazawa, K. Posture-related modulation of cortical excitability in the tibialis anterior muscle in humans. Brain Research. 1577, 29-35 (2014).
  75. Remaud, A., Bilodeau, M., Tremblay, F. Age and Muscle-Dependent Variations in Corticospinal Excitability during Standing Tasks. PLoS ONE. 9 (10), e110004 (2014).
  76. Baudry, S., Collignon, S., Duchateau, J. Influence of age and posture on spinal and corticospinal excitability. Experimental Gerontology. 69, 62-69 (2015).
  77. Petersen, N. T., et al. Suppression of EMG activity by transcranial magnetic stimulation in human subjects during walking. Journal of Physiology. 537 (Pt 2), 651-656 (2001).
  78. Schubert, M., Curt, A., Jensen, L., Dietz, V. Corticospinal input in human gait: modulation of magnetically evoked motor responses. Experimental Brain Research. 115 (2), 234-246 (1997).
  79. Schubert, M., Curt, A., Colombo, G., Berger, W., Dietz, V. Voluntary control of human gait: conditioning of magnetically evoked motor responses in a precision stepping task. Experimental Brain Research. 126 (4), 583-588 (1999).
  80. Ngomo, S., Leonard, G., Moffet, H., Mercier, C. Comparison of transcranial magnetic stimulation measures obtained at rest and under active conditions and their reliability. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 205 (1), 65-71 (2012).
  81. Niskanen, E., et al. Group-level variations in motor representation areas of thenar and anterior tibial muscles: Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Study. Human Brain Mapping. 31 (8), 1272-1280 (2010).
  82. Thordstein, M., Saar, K., Pegenius, G., Elam, M. Individual effects of varying stimulation intensity and response criteria on area of activation for different muscles in humans. A study using navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Brain Stimulation. 6 (1), 49-53 (2013).
  83. Vaalto, S., et al. Long-term plasticity may be manifested as reduction or expansion of cortical representations of actively used muscles in motor skill specialists. Neuroreport. 24 (11), 596-600 (2013).
  84. Forster, M. T., Limbart, M., Seifert, V., Senft, C. Test-retest reliability of navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurosurgery. 10, 55-56 (2014).
  85. Saisanen, L., et al. Non-invasive preoperative localization of primary motor cortex in epilepsy surgery by navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation. Epilepsy Research. 92 (2-3), 134-144 (2010).

Tags

Keyword Extraction:Navigated Transcranial Magnetic StimulationCorticospinal PathwaysAnkle MusclesBilateral AssessmentMotor-evoked PotentialsLower ExtremityTibialis AnteriorStrokeMotor ControlGaitNeuronavigationMRIMontreal Neurological Institute AtlasSkin ModelLeg Motor AreaMotor MappingElectrodesTibialis AnteriorLateral Soleus

Play Video
PDF
DOI
DOWNLOAD MATERIALS LIST
Cite This Article
Charalambous, C. C., Liang, J. N., Kautz, S. A., George, M. S., Bowden, M. G. Bilateral Assessment of the Corticospinal Pathways of the Ankle Muscles Using Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation. J. Vis. Exp. (144), e58944, doi:10.3791/58944 (2019).
Download Citation
Reprints and Permissions

View Video

✖

To prove you're not a robot, please enter the text in the image below

CAPTCHA Image
Play CAPTCHA Audio
Refresh Image