Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Interactive effect between transcranial focused ultrasound and transcranial magnetic stimulation on human motor cortex.
Stanley Chen, Kai-Hsiang; Jacinta Kuo, Yih-Chih; Cheng, Chang-Yu; Dong, Yan-Siou; Fomenko, Anton; Nankoo, Jean-François; Liu, Yi-Ping; Chen, Robert.
Afiliação
  • Stanley Chen KH; Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Electronic address: stanchen@ntu.edu.tw.
  • Jacinta Kuo YC; Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
  • Cheng CY; Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
  • Dong YS; Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
  • Fomenko A; Division of Neurosurgery, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Nankoo JF; Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Liu YP; Department of Neurology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
  • Chen R; Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Neurology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Edmond J. Safra Program in Parkinson's Disease, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: ro
Clin Neurophysiol ; 167: 92-105, 2024 Sep 11.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39305793
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

Transcranial focused ultrasound (TUS) can suppress human motor cortical excitability. However, it is unclear whether the TUS may interact with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) when they co-delivered in multiple trials.

METHODS:

Nineteen subjects received three different TUS-TMS co-stimulation protocols to the motor cortex including concurrent stimulation (TUS-TMS-C), separated stimulation (TUS-TMS-S), and TMS only. In each condition, two runs of 30 stimulation trials were conducted with a five-minute rest between runs. Motor-evoked potentials (MEP) were recorded during stimulation and at 0, 10, 20, and 30 min after stimulation. The MEP amplitudes after intervention were normalized to the mean pre-intervention MEP amplitude and expressed as MEP ratios. An additional test with TUS alone was applied to all participants to assess whether TUS itself can elicit after-effects.

RESULTS:

There were no significant after-effects of all three interventions on MEP ratios. However, 11 subjects who showed online inhibition (OI + ) during the TUS-TMS-C protocol, defined as having MEP ratio less than 1 during TUS-TMS-C, showed significant MEP suppression at 10, 20 and 30 min after TUS-TMS-C. In 8 subjects did not show online inhibition (OI-), defined as having MEP ratios greater than 1 during TUS-TMS-C, showed no significant inhibitory after-effects. OI + and OI- status did not change in a follow-up repeat TUS-TMS-C test. TUS alone did not generate inhibitory after-effects in either OI + or OI- participants.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our results showed that co-delivery of TUS and TMS can elicit inhibitory after-effect in subjects who showed online inhibition, suggesting that TUS and TMS may interact with each other to produce plasticity effects.

SIGNIFICANCE:

TUS and TMS may interact with each other to modulate cortical excitability.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Clin Neurophysiol Assunto da revista: NEUROLOGIA / PSICOFISIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Holanda

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Clin Neurophysiol Assunto da revista: NEUROLOGIA / PSICOFISIOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article País de publicação: Holanda