4.3 Article

Focal enhancement of motor cortex excitability during motor imagery: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Journal

ACTA NEUROLOGICA SCANDINAVICA
Volume 105, Issue 3, Pages 146-151

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0404.2002.1o004.x

Keywords

transcranial magnetic stimulation; motor evoked potentials; motor imagery; primary motor cortex; cortical excitability

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE [Z01NS002669, ZIANS002669] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives - In order to learn more about the physiology of the motor cortex during motor imagery, we evaluated the changes in excitability of two different hand muscle representations in the primary motor cortex (M1) of both hemispheres during two imagery conditions. Materials and methods - We applied focal transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over each M1, recording motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from the contralateral abductor pollicis brevis (APB) and first dorsal interosseus (FDI) muscles during rest, imagery of contralateral thumb abduction (C-APB), and imagery of ipsilateral thumb abduction (I-APB). We obtained measures of motor threshold (MT), MEP recruitment curve (MEP-rc) and F waves. Results - Motor imagery compared with rest significantly decreased the MT and increased MEPs amplitude at stimulation intensities clearly above NIT in condition C-APB. but not in condition I-APB. These effects were not significantly different between right and left hemisphere. MEPs simultaneously recorded from the FDI. which was not involved in the task, did not show facilitatory effects. There were no significant changes in F wave amplitude during motor imagery compared with rest. Conclusions - Imagery of unilateral simple movements is associated with increased excitability only of a highly specific representation in the contralateral M1 and does not differ between hemispheres.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available