Investigating the influence of paired-associative stimulation on multi-session skill acquisition and retention in older adults

Opie, George M.; Pourmajidian, Maryam; Ziemann, Ulf; Semmler, John G.

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2020.04.010

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This has been supported by studies showing that priming-dependent modulation of motor learning is accompanied by related changes in motor cortical excitability (Ziemann et al ., 2004; Jung & Ziemann, 2009). Within the current study, visuomotor training resulted in improved skill levels that are consistent with previous work from our group (Opie et al ., 2020; Hand et al ., 2021; Hand et al ., 2023) and others (Reis et al ., 2009; Ho et al ., 2022). While skill was significantly greater in the iTMS+VT condition, examination of normalised data showed this stemmed from baseline differences in performance (see Results and Fig 3C).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…A sequential visual isometric pinch task (SVIPT) was used to assess motor skill acquisition (Opie et al ., 2020; Hand et al ., 2021; Hand et al ., 2023). Before the task, maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) force was assessed by a force transducer.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This role of neuroplasticity in mediating motor learning means that factors influencing plasticity induction also have the potential to influence the extent of learning. Given the clear benefits of such capabilities in both healthy and pathological populations, an extensive literature aiming to modulate learning by manipulating plasticity has developed (Jung & Ziemann, 2009; Fujiyama et al ., 2017; Sasaki et al ., 2018; Opie et al ., 2020). A popular approach within this literature has been to leverage the concept of metaplasticity, wherein the sign and magnitude of a neuroplastic change is determined by previous activity within the targeted synapses (for review, see Ziemann & Siebner, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A popular approach within this literature has been to leverage the concept of metaplasticity, wherein the sign and magnitude of a neuroplastic change is determined by previous activity within the targeted synapses (for review, see Ziemann & Siebner, 2008). Within this construct, an intervention able to produce a directed change in brain activity is applied before a period of training to ‘prime’ neuroplastic changes associated with training (Jung & Ziemann, 2009; Fujiyama et al ., 2017; Sasaki et al ., 2018; Opie et al ., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The utility of this priming approach has been facilitated in humans by the application of different forms of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS). These techniques can induce short-term neuroplastic changes in the brain (Nitsche & Paulus, 2000; Stefan et al ., 2002; Huang & Rothwell, 2004; Peinemann et al ., 2004) and have been shown to influence skill acquisition in a metaplastic way (Jung & Ziemann, 2009; Jelić et al ., 2015; Fujiyama et al ., 2017; Sasaki et al ., 2018; Opie et al ., 2020). Much of the literature investigating the influence of priming NIBS on motor learning has applied more conventional stimulation (e.g., theta burst stimulation [TBS], paired-associative stimulation [PAS], transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Investigating the effects of repetitive paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation on visuomotor training using TMS-EEG

Sasaki,

Hand,

Liao

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesI-wave periodicity repetitive paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (iTMS) can modify acquisition of a novel motor skill, but the associated neurophysiological effects remain unclear. The current study therefore used combined TMS-electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) to investigate the neurophysiological effects of iTMS on subsequent visuomotor training (VT).MethodsSixteen young adults (26.1 ± 5.1 years) participated in three sessions including real iTMS and VT (iTMS + VT), control iTMS and VT (iTMSsham+ VT), or iTMS alone. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) were measured before and after iTMS, and again after VT, to assess neuroplastic changes.ResultsIrrespective of the intervention, MEP amplitude was not changed after iTMS or VT (P= 0.211). Motor skill was improved compared with baseline (P< 0.001), but no differences were found between stimulus conditions. In contrast, the P30 peak was altered by VT when preceded by sham iTMS (P< 0.05), but this effect was not apparent when VT was preceded by iTMS or following iTMS alone (allP> 0.15).ConclusionIn contrast to expectations, iTMS was unable to modulate MEP amplitude or influence motor learning. Despite this, changes in P30 amplitude suggested that motor learning was associated with altered cortical reactivity. Furthermore, this effect was abolished by priming with iTMS, suggesting an influence of priming that failed to impact learning.Authorship statementsConceptualization: JGS; Data curation: RS, BJH, and WL; Formal analysis: RS; Funding acquisition: RS; Investigation: RS, BJH, and WL; Methodology: RS, GMO, BJH and JGS; Project administration: GMO and JGS; Supervision: GMO and JGS; Roles/Writing - original draft: RS and GMO; Writing - review & editing: BJH, WL, and JGS.

show abstract