Simultaneous EEG/MEG yields complementary information of nociceptive evoked responses

Mahmutoglu, Mustafa Ahmed; Rupp, André; Naumgärtner, Ulf

doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2022.08.005

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, we first identify distinct components of the source-localized MN response ( Forss et al, 2001;Inui et al, 2004;Kanno et al, 2003;Lin et al, 2003Lin et al, , 2003Lin et al, , 2005Sorrentino et al, 2009;Tiihonen et al, 1989;Wikström et al, 1996;Zainea et al, 2005) compared with the sourcelocalized LE response ( Ahmed Mahmutoglu et al, 2022;Baumgärtner et al, 2011;Jin et al, 2018;Omori et al, 2013;Ploner et al, 1999;Raij et al, 2003;Schlereth et al, 2003;Valentini et al, 2012), as reported widely across prior studies. Given these distinctions and the aforementioned observation that the MN and LE responses both originate from a similar region in SI, we use a biophysically constrained neural circuit model via the Human Neocortical Neurosolver (HNN) modeling platform to test a series of targeted hypotheses on how the MN and LE responses are generated in SI through different cell and circuit mechanisms of a common underlying neocortical circuit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…While MEG and EEG measure magnetic and electric fields, respectively, they both reflect fields from primary current sources ( Hämäläinen et al, 1993), which in this study have been isolated to originate in SI. In the case of the earliest components of the MN and LE responses, several studies have shown that MEG and EEG render similar dipole locations orientations in SI, but that EEG produces higher inter-subject variability ( Ahmed Mahmutoglu et al, 2022;Hoshiyama & Kakigi, 2001;Zainea et al, 2005). While the absolute magnitude of the MN and LE responses may change from subject to subject, the timing of each major deflection remains relatively stable ( Ahmed Mahmutoglu et al, 2022;Ou et al, 2007).…”

Section: Mn and Le Responses Have Robust Temporal Profiles Comprising...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the case of the earliest components of the MN and LE responses, several studies have shown that MEG and EEG render similar dipole locations orientations in SI, but that EEG produces higher inter-subject variability ( Ahmed Mahmutoglu et al, 2022;Hoshiyama & Kakigi, 2001;Zainea et al, 2005). While the absolute magnitude of the MN and LE responses may change from subject to subject, the timing of each major deflection remains relatively stable ( Ahmed Mahmutoglu et al, 2022;Ou et al, 2007). Given our emphasis on interpreting robust commonalities in the evoked response deflections of the MN and LE cases, respectively, differences between MEG and EEG as well as inter-subject variability should have minimal impact on the results and conclusions discussed herein.…”

Section: Mn and Le Responses Have Robust Temporal Profiles Comprising...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Distinct neocortical mechanisms underlie human SI responses to median nerve and laser-evoked peripheral activation

Thorpe,

Black,

Borton

et al. 2024

Imaging Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Magneto- and/or electro-encephalography (M/EEG) are non-invasive clinically relevant tools that have long been used to measure electromagnetic fields in the somatosensory cortex evoked by innocuous and noxious somatosensory stimuli. Two commonly applied stimulation paradigms that produce distinct responses in the primary somatosensory cortex (SI) linked to innocuous and noxious sensations are electrical median nerve (MN) stimulation and cutaneous laser-evoked (LE) stimulation to the dorsum of the hand, respectively. Despite their prevalence, the physiological mechanisms that produce stereotypic macroscale MN and LE responses have yet to be fully articulated, limiting their utility in understanding brain dynamics associated with non-painful and/or painful somatosensation. Through a literature review, we detailed features of MN and LE responses source-localized to SI that are robust and reproducible across studies. We showed that the first peak in the MN response at ~20 ms post-stimulus (i.e., MN N1) corresponds to upward-directed deep-to-superficial electrical current flow through the cortical laminae, which is followed by downward-directed current at ~30 ms (i.e., MN P1). In contrast, the initial LE response occurs later at ~170 ms (i.e., LE N1) and is directed downward and opposite the direction of the MN N1. We then examined the neocortical circuit mechanisms contributing to the robust features of each response using the Human Neocortical Neurosolver (HNN) neural modeling software tool (Neymotin et al., 2020). Using HNN as a hypothesis development and testing tool, model results predicted the MN response can be simulated with a sequence of layer-specific thalamocortical and cortico-cortical synaptic drive similar to that previously reported for tactile evoked responses (S. R. Jones et al., 2007; Neymotin et al., 2020), with the novel discovery that an early excitatory input to supragranular layers at ~30 ms is an essential mechanism contributing to the downward current flow of the MN P1. Model results further predicted that the initial ~170 ms downward current flow of the LE N1 was generated by a burst of repetitive gamma-frequency (~40 Hz) excitatory synaptic drive to supragranular layers, consistent with prior reports of LE gamma-frequency activity. These results make novel and detailed multiscale predictions about the dynamic laminar circuit mechanisms underlying temporal and spectral features of MN and LE responses in SI and can guide further investigations in follow-up studies. Ultimately, these findings may help with the development of targeted therapeutics for pathological somatosensation, such as somatic sensitivity and acute neuropathic pain.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Mn and Le Responses Have Robust Temporal Profiles Comprising...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mn and Le Responses Have Robust Temporal Profiles Comprising...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distinct neocortical mechanisms underlie human SI responses to median nerve and laser-evoked peripheral activation

Thorpe,

Black,

Borton

et al. 2024

Imaging Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison between EEG and MEG of static and dynamic resting‐state networks

Cho,

van Es,

Woolrich

et al. 2024

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The characterisation of resting‐state networks (RSNs) using neuroimaging techniques has significantly contributed to our understanding of the organisation of brain activity. Prior work has demonstrated the electrophysiological basis of RSNs and their dynamic nature, revealing transient activations of brain networks with millisecond timescales. While previous research has confirmed the comparability of RSNs identified by electroencephalography (EEG) to those identified by magnetoencephalography (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), most studies have utilised static analysis techniques, ignoring the dynamic nature of brain activity. Often, these studies use high‐density EEG systems, which limit their applicability in clinical settings. Addressing these gaps, our research studies RSNs using medium‐density EEG systems (61 sensors), comparing both static and dynamic brain network features to those obtained from a high‐density MEG system (306 sensors). We assess the qualitative and quantitative comparability of EEG‐derived RSNs to those from MEG, including their ability to capture age‐related effects, and explore the reproducibility of dynamic RSNs within and across the modalities. Our findings suggest that both MEG and EEG offer comparable static and dynamic network descriptions, albeit with MEG offering some increased sensitivity and reproducibility. Such RSNs and their comparability across the two modalities remained consistent qualitatively but not quantitatively when the data were reconstructed without subject‐specific structural MRI images.

show abstract