Repetitive Passive Finger Movement Modulates Primary Somatosensory Cortex Excitability

Somatosensory inputs induced by repetitive passive movement (RPM) modulate primary motor cortex (M1) excitability; however, it is unclear whether RPM affects primary somatosensory cortex (S1) excitability. In this study, we investigated whether RPM affects somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs) and resting state brain oscillation, including alpha and beta bands, depend on RPM frequency. Nineteen healthy subjects participated in this study, and SEPs elicited by peripheral nerve electrical stimulation were recorded from the C3’ area in order to assess S1 excitability (Exp. 1: n = 15). We focused on prominent SEP components such as N20, P25 and P45-reflecting S1 activities. In addition, resting electroencephalograms (EEGs) were recorded from C3’ area to assess the internal state of the brain network at rest (Exp. 2: n = 15). Passive abduction/adduction of the right index finger was applied for 10 min at frequencies of 0.5, 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 Hz in Exp. 1, and 1.0, 3.0, and 5.0 Hz in Exp. 2. No changes in N20 or P25 components were observed following RPM. The 3.0 Hz-RPM decreased the P45 component for 20 min (p < 0.05), but otherwise did not affect the P45 component. There was no difference in the alpha and beta bands before and after any RPM; however, a negative correlation was observed between the rate of change of beta power and P45 component at 3.0 Hz-RPM. Our findings indicated that the P45 component changes depending on the RPM frequency, suggesting that somatosensory inputs induced by RPM influences S1 excitability. Additionally, beta power enhancement appears to contribute to the P45 component depression in 3.0 Hz-RPM

Repetitive Passive Movement Modulates Corticospinal Excitability: Effect of Movement and Rest Cycles and Subject Attention

Repetitive passive movement (PM) affects corticospinal excitability; however, it is unknown whether a duty cycle which repeats movement and rest, or subjects’ conscious attention to movements, affects corticospinal excitability. We aimed to clarify the effect of the presence or absence of a duty cycle and subjects’ attention on corticospinal excitability. Three experiments were conducted. In Experiment 1, PM of the right index finger was performed for 10 min. Three conditions were used: (1) continuous PM (cPM) at a rate of 40°/s; (2) intermittent PM (iPM) with a duty cycle at 40°/s; and (3) iPM at 100°/s. In conditions 1 and 3, motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude was significantly reduced. In Experiment 2, PM was performed for 30 min: condition 1 comprised cPM at a rate of 40°/s and Condition 2 comprised iPM at 40°/s. MEP amplitude significantly decreased in both conditions. In Experiment 3, PM was performed for 10 min: condition 1 comprised paying attention to the moving finger during iPM and Condition 2 was similar to Condition 1 but while counting images on a monitor without looking at the movement finger, and Condition 3 comprised counting images on a monitor without performing PM. MEP amplitude significantly increased only under Condition 1. Thus, afferent input from movements above a certain threshold may affect corticospinal excitability reduction. Furthermore, corticospinal excitability increases when paying attention to passive finger movement

Cerebellar transcranial direct current stimulation disrupts neuroplasticity of intracortical motor circuits

Abstract. While previous research using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) suggest that cerebellum (CB) influences the neuroplastic response of primary motor cortex (M1), the role of different indirect (I) wave inputs in M1 mediating this interaction remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess how CB influences neuroplasticity of early and late I-wave circuits. 22 young adults (22 ± 2.7 years) participated in 3 sessions in which I-wave periodicity repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (iTMS) was applied over M1 during concurrent application of cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation over CB (tDCSCB). In each session, iTMS either targeted early I-waves (1.5 ms interval; iTMS1.5), late I-waves (4.5 ms interval; iTMS4.5), or had no effect (variable interval; iTMSSham). Changes due to the intervention were examined with motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude using TMS protocols measuring corticospinal (MEP1mV) excitability and the strength of CB-M1 connections (CBI). In addition, we indexed I-wave activity using short-interval intracortical facilitation (SICF) and low-intensity single-pulse TMS applied with posterior-anterior (MEPPA) and anterior-posterior (MEPAP) current directions. Following both active iTMS sessions, there was no change in MEP1mV, CBI or SICF (all P > 0.05), suggesting that tDCSCB broadly disrupted the excitatory response that is normally seen following iTMS. However, although MEPAP also failed to facilitate after the intervention (P > 0.05), MEPPA potentiated following both active iTMS sessions (both P < 0.05). This differential response between current directions suggests that the disruptive effects of CB modulation on M1 plasticity may be selectively mediated by AP-sensitive circuits (also likely recruited with MEP1mV, CBI, and SICF)

Modulation of Motor Cortex Plasticity by Repetitive Paired-Pulse TMS at Late I-Wave Intervals Is Influenced by Intracortical Excitability

The late indirect (I)-waves recruited by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over primary motor cortex (M1) can be modulated using I-wave periodicity repetitive TMS (iTMS). The purpose of this study was to determine if the response to iTMS is influenced by different interstimulus intervals (ISIs) targeting late I-waves, and whether these responses were associated with individual variations in intracortical excitability. Seventeen young (27.2 ± 6.4 years, 12 females) healthy adults received iTMS at late I-wave intervals (4.0, 4.5, and 5.0 ms) in three separate sessions. Changes due to each intervention were examined with motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitudes and short-interval intracortical facilitation (SICF) using both posterior-anterior (PA) and anterior-posterior (AP) TMS current directions. Changes in MEP amplitude and SICF were influenced by iTMS ISI, with the greatest facilitation for ISIs at 4 and 5 ms with PA TMS, and 4 ms with AP TMS. Maximum SICF at baseline (irrespective of ISI) was associated with increased iTMS response, but only for PA stimulation. These results suggest that modifying iTMS parameters targeting late I-waves can influence M1 plasticity. They also suggest that maximum SICF may be a means by which responders to iTMS targeting the late I-waves could be identified

Modulation of Corticospinal Excitability Depends on the Pattern of Mechanical Tactile Stimulation

We investigated the effects of different patterns of mechanical tactile stimulation (MS) on corticospinal excitability by measuring the motor-evoked potential (MEP). This was a single-blind study that included nineteen healthy subjects. MS was applied for 20 min to the right index finger. MS intervention was defined as simple, lateral, rubbing, vertical, or random. Simple intervention stimulated the entire finger pad at the same time. Lateral intervention stimulated with moving between left and right on the finger pad. Rubbing intervention stimulated with moving the stimulus probe, fixed by protrusion pins. Vertical intervention stimulated with moving in the forward and backward directions on the finger pad. Random intervention stimulated to finger pad with either row protrudes. MEPs were measured in the first dorsal interosseous muscle to transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left motor cortex before, immediately after, and 5–20 min after intervention. Following simple intervention, MEP amplitudes were significantly smaller than preintervention, indicating depression of corticospinal excitability. Following lateral, rubbing, and vertical intervention, MEP amplitudes were significantly larger than preintervention, indicating facilitation of corticospinal excitability. The modulation of corticospinal excitability depends on MS patterns. These results contribute to knowledge regarding the use of MS as a neurorehabilitation tool to neurological disorder

The effects of repetitive paired pulse and quadripulse transcranial magnetic stimulation on corticospinal excitability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a non-invasive form of brain stimulation that induces a change in corticospinal excitability that lasts beyond the stimulation period, known as neural plasticity. Patterned rTMS protocols like paired pulse TMS (PPS) and quadripulse TMS (QPS) utilise bursts of two or four pulses at different ISIs to induce plasticity. While these paradigms have existed for over 15 years, there is currently only 1 review which has systematically assessed the efficacy of the PPS paradigm and none assessing QPS’s capacity to alter corticospinal excitability. Subsequently, it is paramount that a quantitative review is conducted to empirically determine the degree of both PPS and QPS efficacy to induce change in corticospinal excitability. This will be accomplished by conducting a meta-analysis. Objective: To provide a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of PPS and QPS on corticospinal excitability, as indexed by changes in motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) will be used as a guideline for this protocol. Results: The systematic review will commence after registration of this protocol on Open Science Framework, where it will be locked and date stamped. Conclusions: rTMS paradigms such as PPS and QPS are considered promising protocols for inducing plasticity in the human motor cortex. The proposed systematic review and meta-analysis is being conducted to quantitatively determine the efficacy of these protocols for inducing plasticity and to assess how variability in protocol parameters effect plasticity outcome. Consequently, this review will provide a comprehensive overview of the magnitude of change in corticospinal excitability with PPS and QPS

Effects of Passive Finger Movement on Cortical Excitability

This study examined the effects of joint angle and passive movement direction on corticospinal excitability. The subjects were 14 healthy adults from whom consent could be obtained. We performed two experiments. In Experiment 1, we measured motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude, F-wave and M-wave at 0° and 20° adduction during adduction or abduction movement, in the range of movement from 10° abduction to 30° adduction. In Experiment 2, MEPs were measured at static 0° and 20° adduction during passive adduction from 10° adduction to 30° adduction and static 20° adduction. MEP, F-waves and M-waves were recorded from the right first dorsal interosseous (FDI) muscle. Experiment 1 revealed significantly increased MEP amplitude at 0° during passive adduction compared to static 0° (p < 0.01). No other significant differences in MEP, M-wave and F-wave parameters were observed. In Experiment 2, MEP amplitude was significantly higher at 20° adduction during passive adduction compared with static 0° (p < 0.01). Based on these findings, it appears that fluctuations in MEP amplitude values during passive movement are not influenced by joint angle, but rather it is possible that it is due to intracortical afferent facilitation (AF) dependent on afferent input due to the start of movement and interstimulus interval (ISI) of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)