Paired‐pulse magnetic stimulation of the human motor cortex: differences among I waves

Abstract

1. In paired-pulse cortical stimulation experiments, conditioning subthreshold stimuli suppress the electromyographic (EMG) responses of relaxed muscles to suprathreshold magnetic test stimuli at short interstimulus intervals (ISIs) (1-5 ms) and facilitate them at long ISIs (8-15 ms). 2. We made paired-pulse magnetic stimulation studies on the response of the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI) produced by I1 or I3 waves using our previously reported method which preferentially elicits one group of I waves when subjects make a slight voluntary contraction. In some experiments the conditioning and test stimuli were oppositely directed, in the others they were oriented in the same direction. Single motor unit responses were recorded with a concentric needle electrode, and surface EMG responses with cup electrodes. 3. In post-stimulus time histograms (PSTHs) of the firing probability of motor units, the peaks produced by I3 waves were decreased by a subthreshold conditioning stimulus that preferentially elicited I1 or I3 waves at an ISI of 4 ms. The amount of decrement depended on the intensity of the conditioning stimulus. The stronger the conditioning stimulus, the greater the suppression. In contrast, the peaks produced by I1 waves were little affected by any type of subthreshold conditioning stimulus, given 4 ms prior to the test stimulus. At an ISI of 10 ms, a subthreshold conditioning stimulus slightly decreased the size of the peak produced by the I3 waves, but did not affect the peaks evoked by I1 waves. 4. Surface EMGs showed that a subthreshold conditioning stimulus suppressed the responses produced by I3 waves irrespective of its current direction (anterior or posterior). Both the amount and duration of suppression depended on the intensity of the conditioning stimulus, but not on its current direction. Both parameters increased when the intensity increased. At a high intensity conditioning stimulus, suppression was evoked at ISIs of 1-20 ms, compatible with the duration of GABA-mediated inhibition found in animal experiments. Responses produced by I1 waves were little affected by any type of subthreshold conditioning stimulus. 5. We conclude that a subthreshold conditioning stimulus given over the motor cortex moderately suppresses I3 waves but does not affect I1 waves. The duration of suppression of the I3 waves supports the idea that this is an effect of GABAergic inhibition within the motor cortex.

Cortical Excitability in Cryptogenic Localization‐Related Epilepsy: Interictal Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

“…Intracortical inhibition and facilitation represent separate modes of synaptic modulation of the pyramidal output cell exerted by different populations of interneurons within the primary motor cortex. Possibly, GABAergic circuits play a major role (49,50). In normal subjects, GABAergic drugs can influence both phases of the cor- ticocortical excitability curve (5).…”

Motorcortical Excitability and Synaptic Plasticity Is Enhanced in Professional Musicians

“…SICI tests the excitability of local GABA A ergic inhibitory circuits in the motor cortex (Hanajima et al, 1998;Ilic et al, 2002). The amount of SICI that is evoked depends on the stimulus intensity of the conditioning pulse, describing a "U-shaped" curve (Kujirai et al, 1993;Ziemann et al, 1996;Ilic et al, 2002;Orth et al, 2003) of which the present experiments explored the initial increase in SICI toward its peak level.…”

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation to Investigate Motor Cortical Circuitry and Plasticity in Spinal Cord Injury

“…ICF appears to be a net facilitation consisting of a large facilitatory and a smaller inhibitory effect on the TS [24]. The inhibitory effect originates from the GABA A receptor mediated IPSP, which has a duration of around 20ms [72] this is supported by a decrease in ICF in the presence of benzodiazepines [73] The facilitatory component of ICF is most likely due to NMDA receptor mediated excitatory postsynaptic potentials [74] as seen by decreases in ICF by NMDA receptor antagonists [75,76]. Ketamine [77], a NMDA receptor antagonist, does not seem to change ICF contrary to other NMDA antagonists, suggesting ICF is mediated via NMDA and non-NMDA receptors [74].…”