4.6 Article

Modulation of human corticomotor excitability by somatosensory input

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 540, 期 2, 页码 623-633

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2001.012801

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In humans, somatosensory stimulation results in increased corticomotoneuronal excitability to the stimulated body parts. The purpose of this study was to investigate the underlying mechanisms. We recorded motor evoked potentials (MEPs) to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) from abductor pollicis brevis (APB), first dorsal interosseous (FDI), and abductor digiti minimi (ADM) muscles. MEP amplitudes, recruitment curves (RC), intracortical inhibition (ICI), intracortical facilitation (ICF), resting (rMT) and active motor thresholds (aMT) were recorded before and after a 2-h period of ulnar nerve electrical stimulation at the wrist. Somatosensory input was monitored by recording somatosensory evoked potentials. To differentiate excitability changes at cortical vs. subcortical sites, we recorded supramaximal peripheral M-responses and MEN to brainstem electrical stimulation (BES). In order to investigate the involvement of GABAergic mechanisms, we studied the influence of lorazepam (LZ) (a GABA(A) receptor agonist) relative to that of dextromethorphan (DM) (an NMDA receptor antagonist) and placebo in a double-blind design. We found that somatosensory stimulation increased MEP amplitudes to TMS only in the ADM, confirming a previous report. This effect was blocked by LZ but not by either DM or placebo and lasted between 8 and 20 min in the absence of (i) changes in MEN elicited by BES, (ii) amplitudes of early somatosensory-evoked potentials or (iii) M-responses. We conclude that somatosensory stimulation elicited a focal increase in corticomotoneuronal excitability that outlasts the stimulation period and probably occurs at cortical sites. The antagonistic effect of LZ supports the hypothesis of GABAergic involvement as an operating mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据