4.6 Article

Low-intensity, short-interval theta burst stimulation modulates excitatory but not inhibitory motor networks

期刊

CLINICAL NEUROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 122, 期 7, 页码 1411-1416

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.12.034

关键词

Short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI); Motor evoked potential; Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Theta burst stimulation

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [565301]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) administered at a low stimulus intensity can reduce the excitability of short interval intracortical inhibitory (SICI) networks without affecting the facilitatory intracortical motor networks involved in motor evoked potential (MEP) generation. We sought to determine whether low-intensity, facilitatory, short duration cTBS (300 stimuli over 20 s; cTBS(300)) could modulate SICI without influencing cortical circuits involved in MEP generation. Methods: MEPs and SICI were assessed at baseline and 5 min and 20 min following cTBS(300) applied at intensities of 60%, 65% or 70% of resting motor threshold (RMT). In addition, the effect of cTBS(300) applied at 60% RMT on low level SICI (20% test MEP suppression) was examined. Results: Low-intensity cTBS(300) facilitated MEP amplitude when applied at 70% RMT, and inhibited MEP amplitude when applied at 65% RMT. In contrast, none of the cTBS(300) protocols had significant effects on moderate or low levels of SICI. Conclusions: The effects of cTBS(300) on MEP generating motor networks are highly sensitive to stimulation intensity. Low-intensity cTBS(300) does not have isolated, facilitatory effects on SICI networks. Significance: These results further highlight the difficulties of selectively facilitating the inhibitory circuits within M1 that are responsible for SICI with currently available rTMS paradigms. (C) 2010 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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