8 research outputs found

    The relationship between magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex tactile stimuli

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Magnetoencephalography (MEG) has become an increasingly popular technique for non-invasively characterizing neuromagnetic field changes in the brain at a high temporal resolution. To examine the reliability of the MEG signal, we compared magnetic and electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli from the same animals. We examined changes in neuromagnetic fields, local field potentials (LFP) and multi-unit activity (MUA) in macaque monkey primary somatosensory cortex that were induced by varying the rate of mechanical stimulation. Stimuli were applied to the fingertips with three inter-stimulus intervals (ISIs): 0.33s, 1s and 2s.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Signal intensity was inversely related to the rate of stimulation, but to different degrees for each measurement method. The decrease in response at higher stimulation rates was significantly greater for MUA than LFP and MEG data, while no significant difference was observed between LFP and MEG recordings. Furthermore, response latency was the shortest for MUA and the longest for MEG data.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The MEG signal is an accurate representation of electrophysiological responses to complex natural stimuli. Further, the intensity and latency of the MEG signal were better correlated with the LFP than MUA data suggesting that the MEG signal reflects primarily synaptic currents rather than spiking activity. These differences in latency could be attributed to differences in the extent of spatial summation and/or differential laminar sensitivity.</p

    Visual-Manual Exploration and Posterior Parietal Cortex in Humans

    No full text
    Areas of human posterior parietal cortex (PPC) specialized for processing sensorimotor information associated with visually locating an object, reaching to grasp, and manually exploring that object were examined using functional MRI. Cortical activation was observed in response to three tasks: 1) saccadic eye movements, 2) visually guided reaching to grasp, and 3) manual shape discrimination. During saccadic eye movements, cortical fields within the lateral and rostral superior parietal lobe (SPL) and the caudal SPL and parieto-occipital boundary were active. During visually guided reaching to grasp, regions of cortex within the postcentral sulcus (PoCS) and rostral intraparietal sulcus (IPS) were active, as well as the caudal SPL of the left hemisphere and the medial and caudal IPS of the right hemisphere. Cortical regions at the junction of the IPS and PoCS and an area in the medial SPL were active bilaterally during shape manipulation. Only a few regions were most active during a single motor behavior, whereas several areas were highly active during two or more tasks. Hemispheric asymmetries in activation patterns were observed during visually guided reaching to grasp. The gross areal organization of human PPC is likely similar to the pattern previously described in nonhuman primates, including multifunctional regions and asymmetric processing of some manual abilities

    Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues

    Get PDF
    This article is based on a consensus conference, promoted and supported by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN), which took place in Siena (Italy) in October 2018. The meeting intended to update the ten-year-old safety guidelines for the application of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in research and clinical settings (Rossi et al., 2009). Therefore, only emerging and new issues are covered in detail, leaving still valid the 2009 recommendations regarding the description of conventional or patterned TMS protocols, the screening of subjects/patients, the need of neurophysiological monitoring for new protocols, the utilization of reference thresholds of stimulation, the managing of seizures and the list of minor side effects. New issues discussed in detail from the meeting up to April 2020 are safety issues of recently developed stimulation devices and pulse configurations; duties and responsibility of device makers; novel scenarios of TMS applications such as in the neuroimaging context or imaging-guided and robot-guided TMS; TMS interleaved with transcranial electrical stimulation; safety during paired associative stimulation interventions; and risks of using TMS to induce therapeutic seizures (magnetic seizure therapy). An update on the possible induction of seizures, theoretically the most serious risk of TMS, is provided. It has become apparent that such a risk is low, even in patients taking drugs acting on the central nervous system, at least with the use of traditional stimulation parameters and focal coils for which large data sets are available. Finally, new operational guidelines are provided for safety in planning future trials based on traditional and patterned TMS protocols, as well as a summary of the minimal training requirements for operators, and a note on ethics of neuroenhancement.Peer reviewe
    corecore