Summary

Måling af kontralateral tavs periode induceret af transkraniel magnetisk stimulering med en puls for at undersøge M1 kortikospinal hæmning

Published: August 23, 2022
doi:

Summary

Contralateral silent period (cSP) vurdering er en lovende biomarkør til indeksering af kortikal excitabilitet og behandlingsrespons. Vi demonstrerer en protokol til vurdering af cSP beregnet til undersøgelse af M1 kortikospinal hæmning af øvre og nedre lemmer.

Abstract

Kontralateral lydløs periode (cSP) er en periode med undertrykkelse i baggrunden elektrisk muskelaktivitet fanget af elektromyografi (EMG) efter et motorfremkaldt potentiale (MEP). For at opnå dette fremkaldes en MEP af en suprathreshold transkraniel magnetisk stimulering (TMS) puls leveret til den primære motoriske cortex (M1) i den valgte målmuskel, mens deltageren giver en standardiseret frivillig målmuskelkontraktion. cSP er et resultat af hæmmende mekanismer, der opstår efter MEP; Det giver en bred tidsmæssig vurdering af spinal hæmning i sin indledende ~ 50 ms og kortikal hæmning efter. Forskere har forsøgt bedre at forstå den neurobiologiske mekanisme bag cSP for at validere den som en potentiel diagnostisk, surrogat og prædiktiv biomarkør for forskellige neuropsykiatriske sygdomme. Derfor beskriver denne artikel en metode til måling af M1 cSP i under- og overekstremiteter, herunder et udvalg af målmuskel, elektrodeplacering, spolepositionering, metode til måling af frivillig sammentrækningsstimulering, intensitetsopsætning og dataanalyse for at opnå et repræsentativt resultat. Det har det uddannelsesmæssige mål at give en visuel retningslinje i udførelsen af en gennemførlig, pålidelig og reproducerbar cSP-protokol for under- og overekstremiteter og diskutere praktiske udfordringer ved denne teknik.

Introduction

Den tavse periode (SP) er en periode med elektromyografisk (EMG) stilhed, der følger et motorfremkaldt potentiale (MEP) induceret af transkraniel magnetisk stimulering (TMS) påført under vedvarende muskelkontraktion. Den suprathreshold TMS puls kan enten anvendes på den kontralaterale eller ipsilaterale primære motoriske cortex (M1) af målmusklen, hvorfra EMG-aktiviteten registreres, hvilket giver to fænomener: kontralateral stille periode (cSP) og ipsilateral tavs periode (iSP).

Selvom iSP og cSP deler lignende funktioner, kan de afspejle lidt forskellige komponenter. Den første menes at afspejle transcallosal hæmning og dermed udelukkende være af kortikal oprindelse 1,2. Omvendt undersøges cSP som en mulig surrogat af kortikospinal hæmning, sandsynligvis medieret af gamma-aminosmørsyre (GABA) B-receptorer inden for M1 3,4,5.

Understøtter cSP’s rolle i GABA-medierede veje, tidligere værker har fundet en stigning i cSP-varighed efter oral administration af GABA-forbedrende komponenter 5,6,7,8. Alligevel er spinalprocesser også involveret i at ændre dens varighed. Den tidligere fase (<50 ms) af cSP er forbundet med nedsatte H-refleksværdier3-a refleks, der er et produkt af perifert neurokredsløb, og som kvantificerer excitabiliteten af spinal neuroner9. Spinal behandling menes at være medieret gennem aktivering af Renshaw-celler, motoneuron efter hyperpolarisering og postsynaptisk hæmning af spinale interneuroner 10,11,12,13,14.

På trods af spinalbidrag skyldes cSP hovedsageligt aktiveringen af kortikale hæmmende neuroner, som er ansvarlige for at generere den senere del af cSP (50-200 ms)3,10,13,15,16. I den henseende har den tidlige del af cSP-varigheden været forbundet med spinalhæmningsmekanismer, mens lange cSP’er kræver større kortikale hæmmende mekanismer 3,13,17,18.

Derfor er cSP en lovende biomarkørkandidat til kortikospinal fejltilpasning på grund af neurologiske lidelser, mens mere signifikante cSP-varigheder potentielt afspejler en stigning i kortikospinal hæmning og omvendt 5,11. Derfor har tidligere værker fundet en sammenhæng mellem cSP-varighed og patologier som dystoni, Parkinsons sygdom, kronisk smerte, slagtilfælde og andre neurodegenerative og psykiatriske tilstande 19,20,21,22. For at illustrere, i en knæartrosekohorte, var en højere intrakortikal hæmning (som indekseret af cSP) forbundet med yngre alder, større bruskdegeneration og mindre kognitiv præstation i Montreal kognitiv vurderingsskala23. Desuden kunne cSP-ændringer også indeksere behandlingsrespons og motorisk genopretningi længderetningen 24,25,26,27,28,29,30.

Så lovende som cSP’s rolle inden for neuropsykiatriområdet er, er et udfordrende aspekt af dens vurdering, at den kan være for følsom over for protokolvariationer. For eksempel kan cSP-varigheden (~ 100-300 ms)11 skelnes mellem øvre og nedre lemmer. Salerno et al. fandt en gennemsnitlig cSP-varighed på 121,2 ms (± 32,5) for den første dorsale interosseøse muskel (FDI) og 75,5 ms (± 21) for tibialis anterior muscle (TA) i en prøve af fibromyalgi patienter31. Således formidler litteraturen et utal af forskelle i de parametre, der bruges til at fremkalde cSPs’er, hvilket igen bringer sammenligneligheden på tværs af studier i fare og forsinker oversættelsen til klinisk praksis. Inden for en lignende population har protokollerne været heterogene med hensyn til TMS-pulsindstillingen over tærsklen, der bruges til at stimulere M1 og målmusklen, for eksempel. Derudover har forskere undladt at rapportere de parametre, der anvendes i deres protokoller, korrekt.

Derfor er målet at give en visuel retningslinje for, hvordan man anvender en gennemførlig, pålidelig og let reproducerbar cSP-protokol til evaluering af M1 kortikospinal excitabilitet af øvre og nedre lemmer og at diskutere de praktiske metodologiske udfordringer ved denne procedure. For at hjælpe med at illustrere begrundelsen for valget af parametre gennemførte vi også en ikke-udtømmende litteraturgennemgang om Pubmed / MEDLINE for at identificere offentliggjorte papirer om cSP i kroniske smerte- og rehabiliteringspopulationer ved hjælp af søgeordet: Rehabilitering (Mesh) eller rehabilitering eller kronisk smerte eller slagtilfælde og udtryk som transkraniel magnetisk stimulering og enkeltpuls eller kortikal tavs periode. Der blev ikke defineret inklusionskriterier for ekstraktionen, og de samlede resultater vises kun i tabel 1 til illustrative formål.

Protocol

Denne protokol omfatter forskning i menneskelige emner og er i overensstemmelse med institutionelle og etiske retningslinjer fra lokale etiske komitéer og Helsingfors-erklæringen. Der blev indhentet informeret samtykke fra forsøgspersoner til at bruge deres data i undersøgelsen. 1. Præeksperimentelle procedurer Screening af emnet. Screene emnet for intrakranielle implantater, epilepsi, historie med anfald og graviditet. Brug retningslinjer for spørgeskemaer for…

Representative Results

Efter at have fulgt trin-for-trin-proceduren vil leveringen af en suprathreshold TMS-puls (120% af RMT) fremkalde en observerbar MEP i EMG-optagelsen af målmusklen og en efterfølgende periode med baggrundsundertrykkelse af EMG-aktivitet på ca. 150 ms til 300 ms (figur 2). Fra dette EMG-mønster er det muligt at beregne cSP-målingerne. De mest rapporterede resultater er varigheden (i intervallet ms) af den relative og absolutte SP. Den relative SP måles fra MEP-starten til EMG-aktivitete…

Discussion

Standard SI til at fremkalde MEP og SP’er kan variere alt efter befolkningen. Intensiteter så lave som 80% RMT har vist sig at fremkalde cSP hos raske individer39, stadig undersøgelser af både raske og syge populationer har brugt intensiteter så høje som 150% RMT 49,50,51. Selv om denne kilde til heterogenitet kan være iboende for målpopulationens art, bør den ikke negligeres, da forskellige signi…

Declarações

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

Ingen anerkendelser.

Materials

Alcohol pads Medline Preparation with 70% isopropyl alcohol
Conductive gel Weaver and Company Used on the electrode
Echo Pinch JTECH medical 0902A302 Digital dynamometer.
Mega-EMG Soterix Medical NS006201 Digital multiple channel EMG with built in software.
MEGA-TMS coil Soterix Medical NS063201 8 shaped TMS coil
Mega-TMS stimulator Soterix Medical 6990061 Single Pulse TMS
Neuro-MEP.NET Soterix Medical EMG software used to analyse the muscles eletrical activity.
Swim cap Kiefer

Referências

  1. Li, J. Y., Lai, P. H., Chen, R. Transcallosal inhibition in patients with callosal infarction. Journal of Neurophysiology. 109 (3), 659-665 (2013).
  2. Wassermann, E. M., Fuhr, P., Cohen, L. G., Hallett, M. Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on ipsilateral muscles. Neurology. 41 (11), 1795-1799 (1991).
  3. Fuhr, P., Agostino, R., Hallett, M. Spinal motor neuron excitability during the silent period after cortical stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 81 (4), 257-262 (1991).
  4. Meyer, B. U., Röricht, S., Gräfin von Einsiedel, H., Kruggel, F., Weindl, A. Inhibitory and excitatory interhemispheric transfers between motor cortical areas in normal humans and patients with abnormalities of the corpus callosum. Brain. 118, 429-440 (1995).
  5. Hupfeld, K. E., Swanson, C. W., Fling, B. W., Seidler, R. D. TMS-induced silent periods: A review of methods and call for consistency). Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 346, 108950 (2020).
  6. Siebner, H. R., Dressnandt, J., Auer, C., Conrad, B. Continuous intrathecal baclofen infusions induced a marked increase of the transcranially evoked silent period in a patient with generalized dystonia. Muscle Nerve. 21 (9), 1209-1212 (1998).
  7. Vallence, A. M., Smalley, E., Drummond, P. D., Hammond, G. R. Long-interval intracortical inhibition is asymmetric in young but not older adults. Journal of Neurophysiology. 118 (3), 1581-1590 (2017).
  8. Manconi, F. M., Syed, N. A., Floeter, M. K. Mechanisms underlying spinal motor neuron excitability during the cutaneous silent period in humans. Muscle Nerve. 21 (10), 1256-1264 (1998).
  9. Romanò, C., Schieppati, M. Reflex excitability of human soleus motoneurones during voluntary shortening or lengthening contractions. The Journal of Physiology. 390, 271-284 (1987).
  10. Cantello, R., Gianelli, M., Civardi, C., Mutani, R. Magnetic brain stimulation: the silent period after the motor evoked potential. Neurology. 42 (10), 1951-1959 (1992).
  11. Rossini, P. M., et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 126 (6), 1071-1107 (2015).
  12. Classen, J., Benecke, R. Inhibitory phenomena in individual motor units induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 97 (5), 264-274 (1995).
  13. Inghilleri, M., Berardelli, A., Cruccu, G., Manfredi, M. Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human cortex and cervicomedullary junction. The Journal of Physiology. 466, 521-534 (1993).
  14. Roick, H., von Giesen, H. J., Benecke, R. On the origin of the postexcitatory inhibition seen after transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in awake human subjects. Experimental Brain Research. 94 (3), 489-498 (1993).
  15. Chen, R., Lozano, A. M., Ashby, P. Mechanism of the silent period following transcranial magnetic stimulation. Evidence from epidural recordings. Experimental Brain Research. 128 (4), 539-542 (1999).
  16. Schnitzler, A., Benecke, R. The silent period after transcranial magnetic stimulation is of exclusive cortical origin: evidence from isolated cortical ischemic lesions in man. Neuroscience Letters. 180 (1), 41-45 (1994).
  17. Cantello, R., Tarletti, R., Civardi, C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and Parkinson’s disease. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews. 38 (3), 309-327 (2002).
  18. Ziemann, U., Netz, J., Szelényi, A., Hömberg, V. Spinal and supraspinal mechanisms contribute to the silent period in the contracting soleus muscle after transcranial magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Neuroscience Letters. 156 (1-2), 167-171 (1993).
  19. Paci, M., Di Cosmo, G., Perrucci, M. G., Ferri, F., Costantini, M. Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance. Scientific Reports. 11 (1), 15158 (2021).
  20. Poston, B., Kukke, S. N., Paine, R. W., Francis, S., Hallett, M. Cortical silent period duration and its implications for surround inhibition of a hand muscle. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 36 (7), 2964-2971 (2012).
  21. Vidor, L. P., et al. Association of anxiety with intracortical inhibition and descending pain modulation in chronic myofascial pain syndrome. BMC Neuroscience. 15, 42 (2014).
  22. Bradnam, L., et al. Afferent inhibition and cortical silent periods in shoulder primary motor cortex and effect of a suprascapular nerve block in people experiencing chronic shoulder pain. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127 (1), 769-778 (2016).
  23. Simis, M., et al. Increased motor cortex inhibition as a marker of compensation to chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis. Scientific Reports. 11 (1), 24011 (2021).
  24. List, J., et al. Cortical reorganization due to impaired cerebral autoregulation in individuals with occlusive processes of the internal carotid artery. Brain Stimulation. 7 (3), 381-387 (2014).
  25. Gray, W. A., Palmer, J. A., Wolf, S. L., Borich, M. R. Abnormal EEG responses to TMS during the cortical silent period are associated with hand function in chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 31 (7), 666-676 (2017).
  26. Braune, H. J., Fritz, C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked inhibition of voluntary muscle activity (silent period) is impaired in patients with ischemic hemispheric lesion. Stroke. 26 (4), 550-553 (1995).
  27. Goodwill, A. M., Teo, W. -. P., Morgan, P., Daly, R. M., Kidgell, D. J. Bihemispheric-tDCS and upper limb rehabilitation improves retention of motor function in chronic stroke: A pilot study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 258 (2016).
  28. Cincotta, M., et al. Suprathreshold 0.3 Hz repetitive TMS prolongs the cortical silent period: potential implications for therapeutic trials in epilepsy. Clinical Neurophysiology. 114 (10), 1827-1833 (2003).
  29. Langguth, B., et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus: effects on cortical excitability. BMC Neuroscience. 8, 45 (2007).
  30. Priori, A., et al. Rhythm-specific pharmacological modulation of subthalamic activity in Parkinson’s disease. Experimental Neurology. 189 (2), 369-379 (2004).
  31. Salerno, A., et al. Motor cortical dysfunction disclosed by single and double magnetic stimulation in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Neurophysiology. 111 (6), 994-1001 (2000).
  32. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A. Screening questionnaire before TMS: an update. Clinical Neurophysiology. 122 (8), 1686 (2011).
  33. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A. Safety of, T.M.S.C.G. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology. 120 (12), 2008-2039 (2009).
  34. Rossi, S., et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology. 132 (1), 269-306 (2021).
  35. Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 10 (5), 361-374 (2000).
  36. Groppa, S., et al. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 123 (5), 858-882 (2012).
  37. Daskalakis, Z. J., et al. An automated method to determine the transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced contralateral silent period. Clinical Neurophysiology. 114 (5), 938-944 (2003).
  38. Orth, M., Rothwell, J. C. The cortical silent period: intrinsic variability and relation to the waveform of the transcranial magnetic stimulation pulse. Clinical Neurophysiology. 115 (5), 1076-1082 (2004).
  39. Säisänen, L., et al. Factors influencing cortical silent period: optimized stimulus location, intensity and muscle contraction. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 169 (1), 231-238 (2008).
  40. Kojima, S., et al. Modulation of the cortical silent period elicited by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. BMC Neuroscience. 14 (1), 43 (2013).
  41. Poston, B., Kukke, S. N., Paine, R. W., Francis, S., Hallett, M. Cortical silent period duration and its implications for surround inhibition of a hand muscle. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 36 (7), 2964-2971 (2012).
  42. Kimiskidis, V. K., et al. Silent period to transcranial magnetic stimulation: construction and properties of stimulus-response curves in healthy volunteers. Experimental Brain Research. 163 (1), 21-31 (2005).
  43. Chipchase, L., et al. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: an international consensus study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 123 (9), 1698-1704 (2012).
  44. Rossini, P. M., et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 126 (6), 1071-1107 (2015).
  45. Zeugin, D., Ionta, S. Anatomo-Functional origins of the cortical silent period: Spotlight on the basal ganglia. Brain Sciences. 11 (6), 705 (2021).
  46. Person, R. S., Kozhina, G. V. Investigation of the silent period by a poststimulus histogram method. Neurophysiology. 10 (2), 123-129 (1978).
  47. Stinear, C. M., Coxon, J. P., Byblow, W. D. Primary motor cortex and movement prevention: where Stop meets Go. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 33 (5), 662-673 (2009).
  48. Mathis, J., de Quervain, D., Hess, C. W. Dependence of the transcranially induced silent period on the ‘instruction set’ and the individual reaction time. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 109 (5), 426-435 (1998).
  49. Chandra, S. R., Issac, T. G., Nagaraju, B. C., Philip, M. A study of cortical excitability, central motor conduction, and cortical inhibition using single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with early frontotemporal and Alzheimer’s Dementia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 38 (1), 25-30 (2016).
  50. Bocci, T., et al. Spinal direct current stimulation modulates short intracortical inhibition. Neuromodulation. 18 (8), 686-693 (2015).
  51. Zunhammer, M., et al. Modulation of human motor cortex excitability by valproate. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 215 (2), 277-280 (2011).
  52. Ho, K. H., Nithi, K., Mills, K. R. Covariation between human intrinsic hand muscles of the silent periods and compound muscle action potentials evoked by magnetic brain stimulation: evidence for common inhibitory connections. Experimental Brain Research. 122 (4), 433-440 (1998).
  53. Acler, M., Fiaschi, A., Manganotti, P. Long-term levodopa administration in chronic stroke patients. A clinical and neurophysiologic single-blind placebo-controlled cross-over pilot study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 27 (4), 277-283 (2009).
  54. Volz, M. S., et al. Dissociation of motor task-induced cortical excitability and pain perception changes in healthy volunteers. PLoS One. 7 (3), 34273 (2012).
  55. Veldema, J., Nowak, D. A., Gharabaghi, A. Resting motor threshold in the course of hand motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 18 (1), 158 (2021).
  56. Rossi, S., et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology. 132 (1), 269-306 (2021).
  57. Ortu, E., et al. Primary motor cortex hyperexcitability in Fabry’s disease. Clinical Neurophysiology. 124 (7), 1381-1389 (2013).
  58. Goodwill, A. M., Teo, W. P., Morgan, P., Daly, R. M., Kidgell, D. J. Bihemispheric-tDCS and upper limb rehabilitation improves retention of motor function in chronic stroke: A pilot study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 258 (2016).
  59. Mayorga, T., et al. Motor-Evoked potentials of the abductor hallucis muscle and their relationship with foot arch functional anatomy. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association. 107 (5), 467-470 (2017).
  60. Matsugi, A., et al. Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the silent period on hand muscle electromyography during force control. Brain Science. 10 (2), 63 (2020).
  61. van Kuijk, A. A., Pasman, J. W., Geurts, A. C., Hendricks, H. T. How salient is the silent period? The role of the silent period in the prognosis of upper extremity motor recovery after severe stroke. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 22 (1), 10-24 (2005).
  62. Wu, L., Goto, Y., Taniwaki, T., Kinukawa, N., Tobimatsu, S. Different patterns of excitation and inhibition of the small hand and forearm muscles from magnetic brain stimulation in humans. Clinical Neurophysiology. 113 (8), 1286-1294 (2002).
  63. Hunter, S. K., Todd, G., Butler, J. E., Gandevia, S. C., Taylor, J. L. Recovery from supraspinal fatigue is slowed in old adults after fatiguing maximal isometric contractions. Journal of Applied Physiology. 105 (4), 1199-1209 (2008).
  64. Yoon, T., Schlinder-Delap, B., Keller, M. L., Hunter, S. K. Supraspinal fatigue impedes recovery from a low-intensity sustained contraction in old adults. Journal of Applied Physiology. 112 (5), 849-858 (2012).
  65. Kennedy, D. S., McNeil, C. J., Gandevia, S. C., Taylor, J. L. Effects of fatigue on corticospinal excitability of the human knee extensors. Experimental Physiology. 101 (12), 1552-1564 (2016).
  66. Goodall, S., Howatson, G., Thomas, K. Modulation of specific inhibitory networks in fatigued locomotor muscles of healthy males. Experimental Brain Research. 236 (2), 463-473 (2018).
  67. Neva, J. L., et al. Multiple measures of corticospinal excitability are associated with clinical features of multiple sclerosis. Behavioural Brain Research. 297, 187-195 (2016).
  68. Caumo, W., et al. Motor cortex excitability and BDNF levels in chronic musculoskeletal pain according to structural pathology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 357 (2016).
  69. Chen, M., Deng, H., Schmidt, R. L., Kimberley, T. J. Low-Frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to premotor cortex followed by primary motor cortex modulates excitability differently than premotor cortex or primary motor cortex stimulation alone. Neuromodulation. 18 (8), 678-685 (2015).
  70. van Kuijk, A. A., et al. Definition dependent properties of the cortical silent period in upper-extremity muscles, a methodological study. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 11, 1 (2014).
  71. van Kuijk, A. A., et al. Stimulus-response characteristics of motor evoked potentials and silent periods in proximal and distal upper-extremity muscles. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 19 (4), 574-583 (2009).
  72. Vernillo, G., Temesi, J., Martin, M., Millet, G. Y. Mechanisms of fatigue and recovery in upper versus lower limbs in men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 50 (2), 334-343 (2018).
  73. Chen, M., et al. Evaluation of the cortical silent period of the laryngeal motor cortex in healthy individuals. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 11, 88 (2017).
  74. Masakado, Y., Akaboshi, K., Nagata, M., Kimura, A., Chino, N. Motor unit firing behavior in slow and fast contractions of the first dorsal interosseous muscle of healthy men. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 97 (6), 290-295 (1995).
  75. Petersen, N. T., Pyndt, H. S., Nielsen, J. B. Investigating human motor control by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Experimental Brain Research. 152 (1), 1-16 (2003).
  76. Dharmadasa, T., et al. The effect of coil type and limb dominance in the assessment of lower-limb motor cortex excitability using TMS. Neuroscience Letters. 699, 84-90 (2019).
  77. 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).
  78. Proessl, F., et al. Characterizing off-target corticospinal responses to double-cone transcranial magnetic stimulation. Experimental Brain Research. 239 (4), 1099-1110 (2021).
  79. Dharmadasa, T., et al. The effect of coil type and limb dominance in the assessment of lower-limb motor cortex excitability using TMS. Neuroscience Letters. 699, 84-90 (2019).
  80. 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).
check_url/pt/64231?article_type=t

Play Video

Citar este artigo
Rebello-Sanchez, I., Parente, J., Pacheco-Barrios, K., Marduy, A., Pimenta, D. C., Lima, D., Slawka, E., Cardenas-Rojas, A., Rosa, G. R., Nazim, K., Datta, A., Fregni, F. Measuring Contralateral Silent Period Induced by Single-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Investigate M1 Corticospinal Inhibition. J. Vis. Exp. (186), e64231, doi:10.3791/64231 (2022).

View Video