Cortical excitability and neuropsychological functioning in healthy adults

Bolden, Lauren B.; Griffis, Joseph C.; Pati, Sandipan; Szaflarski, Jerzy P.

doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.06.028

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors consistently report low interindividual variability of LICI (Badawy et al, 2010b(Badawy et al, , 2013(Badawy et al, , 2013a(Badawy et al, , c, d, 2014(Badawy et al, , 2015; however, others reported much higher variability of TMS responses (Valls-Solé et al, 1992;Wassermann et al, 1996;Nakamura et al, 1997;Sanger et al, 2001;Wassermann, 2002;Lang et al, 2011;Du et al, 2014). In our cohort, the response ratio to long-interval paired pulse stimulation varied between individuals from strong inhibition to facilitation supporting some previous studies (Valls-Solé et al, 1992;Bolden et al, 2017). LICI variability was shown to be linked to the time of day and sleep status (Lang et al, 2011), neuropsychological profile (Bolden et al, 2017) and to age and hemispheric dominance (Vallence et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…In our cohort, the response ratio to long-interval paired pulse stimulation varied between individuals from strong inhibition to facilitation supporting some previous studies (Valls-Solé et al, 1992;Bolden et al, 2017). LICI variability was shown to be linked to the time of day and sleep status (Lang et al, 2011), neuropsychological profile (Bolden et al, 2017) and to age and hemispheric dominance (Vallence et al, 2017). While some TMS variables were shown to vary according to the menstrual cycle (Smith et al, 2002;Inghilleri et al, 2004;Hattemer et al, 2007), no data are available for LICI.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The relatively short intertrial intervals in all centres may thus have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings obtained with an interstimulus interval of 15 s (Badawy et al, 2010a(Badawy et al, , 2013(Badawy et al, , 2013c. A recent study, however, that also used an intertrial interval of 15 s showed facilitation at ISIs of 50, 80, 110 and 140 ms in a group of 20 healthy volunteers (Bolden et al, 2017). Future studies are warranted to quantify the influence of intertrial interval on paired pulse TMS protocols.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Bauer

Goede

Stern

et al. 2018

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cortical excitability, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation combined with electromyography, is a potential biomarker for the diagnosis and follow-up of epilepsy. We report on long-interval intracortical inhibition data measured in four different centres in healthy controls (n = 95), subjects with refractory genetic generalized epilepsy (n = 40) and with refractory focal epilepsy (n = 69). Long-interval intracortical inhibition was measured by applying two supra-threshold stimuli with an interstimulus interval of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250 ms and calculating the ratio between the response to the second (test stimulus) and to the first (conditioning stimulus). In all subjects, the median response ratio showed inhibition at all interstimulus intervals. Using a mixed linear-effects model, we compared the long-interval intracortical inhibition response ratios between the different subject types. We conducted two analyses; one including data from the four centres and one excluding data from Centre 2, as the methods in this centre differed from the others. In the first analysis, we found no differences in long-interval intracortical inhibition between the different subject types. In all subjects, the response ratios at interstimulus intervals 100 and 150 ms showed significantly more inhibition than the response ratios at 50, 200 and 250 ms. Our second analysis showed a significant interaction between interstimulus interval and subject type (P = 0.0003). Post hoc testing showed significant differences between controls and refractory focal epilepsy at interstimulus intervals of 100 ms (P = 0.02) and 200 ms (P = 0.04). There were no significant differences between controls and refractory generalized epilepsy groups or between the refractory generalized and focal epilepsy groups. Our results do not support the body of previous work that suggests that long-interval intracortical inhibition is significantly reduced in refractory focal and genetic generalized epilepsy. Results from the second analysis are even in sharper contrast with previous work, showing inhibition in refractory focal epilepsy at 200 ms instead of facilitation previously reported. Methodological differences, especially shorter intervals between the pulse pairs, may have contributed to our inability to reproduce previous findings. Based on our results, we suggest that long-interval intracortical inhibition as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation and electromyography is unlikely to have clinical use as a biomarker of epilepsy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Bauer

Goede

Stern

et al. 2018

Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(23) Both subject and environmental factors and parameters of TMS protocol may affect the TMS results. Time of day and sleep status, (24) age and hemispheric dominance, (25) and menstrual cycle (26) have been reported to be subject and environmental factors, while the intertrial interval (27,28) and the shape and size of the coil (29,30) have been reported to be TMS protocol-related factors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cortical Excitability by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as Biomarkers for Seizure Controllability in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Huang

Tsai

et al. 2020

Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A proper balance between excitation and inhibition is essential for normal physiological brain function. Various neuropsychiatric conditions, such as epilepsy, autism and schizophrenia, appear to be related to an imbalance in cortical excitability (Bauer et al 2014;Bunse et al 2014;Bolden et al 2017;Oliveira et al 2018). Paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can be used to assess cortical excitability, as well as to obtain information about the relative contribution of excitatory and inhibitory networks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Single and Paired Pulse TMS-EEG Responses

Goede

Putten

2020

Brain Topogr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For physiological brain function a particular balance between excitation and inhibition is essential. Paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can estimate cortical excitability and the relative contribution of inhibitory and excitatory networks. Combining TMS with electroencephalography (EEG) enables additional assessment of the spatiotemporal dynamics of neuronal responses in the stimulated brain. This study aims to evaluate the spatiotemporal dynamics and stability of single and paired pulse TMS-EEG responses, and assess long intracortical inhibition (LICI) at the cortical level. Twenty-five healthy subjects were studied twice, approximately one week apart. Manual coil positioning was applied in sixteen subjects and robot-guided positioning in nine. Both motor cortices were stimulated with 50 single pulses and 50 paired pulses at each of the five interstimulus intervals (ISIs): 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 ms. To assess stability and LICI, the intraclass correlation coefficient and cluster-based permutation analysis were used. We found great resemblance in the topographical distribution of the characteristic TMS-EEG components for single and paired pulse TMS. Stimulation of the dominant and non-dominant hemisphere resulted in a mirrored spatiotemporal dynamics. No significant effect on the TMS-EEG responses was found for either stimulated hemisphere, time or coil positioning method, indicating the stability of both single and paired pulse TMS-EEG responses. For all ISIs, LICI was characterized by significant suppression of the late N100 and P180 components in the central areas, without affecting the early P30, N45 and P60 components. These observations in healthy subjects can serve as reference values for future neuropsychiatric and pharmacological studies.

show abstract

Cortical excitability and neuropsychological functioning in healthy adults

Cited by 21 publications

References 49 publications

Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Long-interval intracortical inhibition as biomarker for epilepsy: a transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Cortical Excitability by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation as Biomarkers for Seizure Controllability in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy

Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Single and Paired Pulse TMS-EEG Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About