4.2 Article

Motor cortex excitability following short trains of repetitive magnetic stimuli

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 140, Issue 4, Pages 453-459

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s002210100843

Keywords

transcranial magnetic stimulation; motor cortex; human

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Trains of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimuli (rTMS) appear to have effects on corticospinal excitability that outlast the duration of the train. In order to investigate the mechanism of this effect in more detail we applied short periods of rTMS consisting of up to 20 stimuli at 5 Hz, 10 Hz or 20 Hz (rTMS) to the motor cortex at an intensity equal to resting threshold in 11 healthy, relaxed subjects. Spinal excitability, as judged by effects on the H-reflex or on transcranial anodal facilitation of the H-reflex, was not affected by the rTMS. However, cortical excitability, as judged by the effect on the size of EMG responses evoked by a suprathreshold TMS pulse, was decreased for up to 1 s after the end of rTMS. Post-train suppression was more powerful following longer trains or higher frequencies of rTMS. The predominant suppression contrasts with previous reports of facilitation, particularly after high-frequency rTMS. A second set of experiments, however, showed that this could be converted into facilitation if the intensity of rTMS was increased. We conclude that the after-effects of rTMS depend on its frequency, intensity and duration. The results are consistent with a model in which inhibition and facilitation build up gradually during the course of a conditioning train. Inhibition reaches its maximum effect after only a small number of stimuli, whereas facilitation takes longer. The threshold for evoking inhibition is lower than that for facilitation. Thus if moderate intensities of conditioning train are applied, inhibition is predominant after short trains, whereas facilitation dominates after long trains.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available