4.6 Article

High-frequency focal repetitive cerebellar stimulation induces prolonged increases in human pharyngeal motor cortex excitability

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 593, 期 22, 页码 4963-4977

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP270817

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [091809/Z/10/Z]
  2. University of Manchester, UK
  3. pump-priming award from University of Manchester Neuroscience Research Institute
  4. Wellcome Trust [091809/Z/10/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain neurostimulation has been shown to modulate cortical swallowing neurophysiology in post-stroke dysphagia with therapeutic effects which are critically dependent on the stimulation parameters. Cerebellar neurostimulation is, however, a novel, unexplored approach to modulation of swallowing pathways as a prelude to therapy for dysphagia. Here, we randomised healthy human subjects (n=17) to receive one of five cerebellar repetitive TMS (rTMS) interventions (Sham, 1Hz, 5Hz, 10Hz and 20Hz) on separate visits to our laboratory. Additionally, a subset of subjects randomly received each of three different durations (50, 250, 500 pulses) of optimal frequency versus sham cerebellar rTMS. Prior to interventions subjects underwent MRI-guided single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to co-localise pharyngeal and thenar representation in the cortex and cerebellum (midline and hemispheric) before acquisition of baseline motor evoked potential (MEP) recordings from each site as a measure of excitability. Post-interventional MEPs were recorded for an hour and compared to sham using repeated measures ANOVA. Only 10Hz cerebellar rTMS increased cortico-pharyngeal MEP amplitudes (mean bilateral increase 52%, P=0.007) with effects lasting 30min post-intervention with an optimal train length of 250 pulses (P=0.019). These optimised parameters of cerebellar rTMS can produce sustained increases in corticobulbar excitability and may have clinical translation in future studies of neurogenic dysphagia.

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