2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2015.06.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Probing changes in corticospinal excitability following theta burst stimulation of the human primary motor cortex

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

3
31
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
3
31
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Indeed, we also found highly variable MEP responses to cTBS, to both types of speech stimuli. This is in line with recent observations of highly variable MEP response profiles following cTBS (Goldsworthy et al, 2016;Hannah et al, 2016;Hordacre et al, 2016;Vallence et al, 2015;Vernet et al, 2014). Whilst progress has been made in understanding the causes of MEP (Davare, Lemon, & Olivier, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Indeed, we also found highly variable MEP responses to cTBS, to both types of speech stimuli. This is in line with recent observations of highly variable MEP response profiles following cTBS (Goldsworthy et al, 2016;Hannah et al, 2016;Hordacre et al, 2016;Vallence et al, 2015;Vernet et al, 2014). Whilst progress has been made in understanding the causes of MEP (Davare, Lemon, & Olivier, 2008).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Contrary to what has been observed in RAD51 +/− / MM + individuals, where mirror MEPs were elicited in no more than one‐third of TMS trials using 1.2x resting motor threshold intensity, mirror MEPs were induced in 100% of trials among DCC +/− /MM + participants using a similar stimulation intensity at rest (1 mV MEP), consistent with recent reports . Therefore, it appears that downregulating DCC, compared to RAD51, has a larger impact on the development and excitability of the ipsilateral CST.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Another possible explanation for CE facilitation after pcTBS, but not CE suppression after piTBS, maybe the fact that we were biased in detecting the potentially piTBS-induced CE suppression by measuring MEPs below the testable range. In an earlier study with non-prolonged TBS, the authors found that cTBS-induced MEP inhibition is observed by measuring at higher stimulus intensities (150% RMT), while lower stimulus intensities (110% RMT) are optimal for detecting iTBS-induced MEP facilitation (Goldsworthy et al, 2016 ). Based on their results, it may be assumed that potential piTBS-induced MEP inhibition will be observed when probed with a stimulus intensity much higher than at an RMT level.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%