Variability in Response to Quadripulse Stimulation of the Motor Cortex

Nakamura, Koichiro; Groiss, Stefan Jun; Hamada, Masayuki; Enomoto, Hiroyuki; Kadowaki, Shinpei; Abe, Mitsunari; Murakami, Takenobu; Wiratman, Winnugroho; Chang, Fang-Yu; Kobayashi, Shunsuke; Hanajima, Ritsuko; Terao, Yasuo; Ugawa, Yoshikazu

doi:10.1016/j.brs.2016.01.008

Cited by 61 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the inconsistent results between the current and previous studies may be due to inter-individual variability. Such discrepancy in the after-effects are not only restricted to TBS, but also in other forms of non-invasive brain stimulation (Hill et al, 2017;Muller-Dahlhaus, Orekhov, Liu, & Ziemann, 2008;Nakamura et al, 2016;Nikolin, Martin, Loo, & Boonstra, 2018;Wiethoff, Hamada, & Rothwell, 2014). The variation could be reduced by accounting for the inter-individual neurophysiological differences in parameter design as observed in this study (Ind iTBS) and also in the motor cortex (Cash, Murakami, Chen, Thickbroom, & Ziemann, 2016).…”

Section: Effect Of Individualised Itbs On Plastic Effects In the Prmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated a degree of publication bias which suggests overestimation of the stimulation effect in the literature (Chung et al, 2016). Such discrepancy in the after-effects are not only restricted to TBS, but also in other forms of non-invasive brain stimulation (Hill et al, 2017;Muller-Dahlhaus, Orekhov, Liu, & Ziemann, 2008;Nakamura et al, 2016;Nikolin, Martin, Loo, & Boonstra, 2018;Wiethoff, Hamada, & Rothwell, 2014). Therefore, the inconsistent results between the current and previous studies may be due to inter-individual variability.…”

Section: Effect Of Individualised Itbs On Plastic Effects In the Prmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of individualised intermittent theta burst stimulation in the prefrontal cortex: A TMS‐EEG study

Chung

Sullivan

Rogasch

et al. 2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have highlighted variability in response to theta burst stimulation (TBS) in humans. TBS paradigm was originally developed in rodents to mimic gamma bursts coupled with theta rhythms, and was shown to elicit long‐term potentiation. The protocol was subsequently adapted for humans using standardised frequencies of stimulation. However, each individual has different rhythmic firing pattern. The present study sought to explore whether individualised intermittent TBS (Ind iTBS) could outperform the effects of two other iTBS variants. Twenty healthy volunteers received iTBS over left prefrontal cortex using 30 Hz at 6 Hz, 50 Hz at 5 Hz, or individualised frequency in separate sessions. Ind iTBS was determined using theta‐gamma coupling during the 3‐back task. Concurrent use of transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS‐EEG) was used to track changes in cortical plasticity. We also utilised mood ratings using a visual analogue scale and assessed working memory via the 3‐back task before and after stimulation. No group‐level effect was observed following either 30 or 50 Hz iTBS in TMS‐EEG. Ind iTBS significantly increased the amplitude of the TMS‐evoked P60, and decreased N100 and P200 amplitudes. A significant positive correlation between neurophysiological change and change in mood rating was also observed. Improved accuracy in the 3‐back task was observed following both 50 Hz and Ind iTBS conditions. These findings highlight the critical importance of frequency in the parameter space of iTBS. Tailored stimulation parameters appear more efficacious than standard paradigms in neurophysiological and mood changes. This novel approach presents a promising option and benefits may extend to clinical applications.

show abstract

Section: Effect Of Individualised Itbs On Plastic Effects In the Prmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Effect Of Individualised Itbs On Plastic Effects In the Prmentioning

confidence: 84%

The effects of individualised intermittent theta burst stimulation in the prefrontal cortex: A TMS‐EEG study

Chung

Sullivan

Rogasch

et al. 2018

Human Brain Mapping

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Precise and continuous stimulation of the targeted area is obviously needed to induce effective neuromodulation [52,53]. Moreover, type (monophasic/biphasic), intensity (low/high), frequency and total number of TMS stimuli significantly affect the direction and amounts of NIBS after-effects [1,8,54]. Regarding tDCS, differences in electrodes size, intensity used, montages, targeted area and duration of stimulation can be responsible of intra-and inter-individual variability.…”

Section: Technical Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies: Reasons and results

Guerra

López-Alonso

Cheeran

et al. 2020

Neuroscience Letters

128

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-invasive brain stimulation techniques (NIBS), such as Theta Burst Stimulation (TBS), Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS) and transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS), are widely used to probe plasticity in the human motor cortex (M1). Although TBS, PAS and tDCS differ in terms of physiological mechanisms responsible for experimentally-induced cortical plasticity, they all share the ability to elicit long-term potentiation (LTP) and depression (LTD) in M1. However, NIBS techniques are all affected by relevant variability in intra- and inter-subject responses. A growing number of factors contributing to NIBS variability have been recently identified and reported. In this review, we have readdressed the issue of variability in human NIBS studies. We have first briefly discussed the physiological mechanisms responsible for TBS, PAS and tDCS-induced cortical plasticity. Then, we have provided statistical measures of intra- and inter-subject variability, as calculated in previous studies. Finally, we have reported in detail known sources of variability by categorizing them into physiological, technical and statistical factors. Improving knowledge about sources of variability could lead to relevant advances in designing new tailored NIBS protocols in physiological and pathological conditions.

show abstract

“…Next, each participant is classified as a positive responder if the mean MEP pp across T1-T6 is greater than M A N U S C R I P T A C C E P T E D ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 6 the threshold and a negative responder if the mean MEP pp across T1-T6 is less than the threshold. Dichotomised thresholding is a common method of subgrouping normalised MEP data [22,[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33].…”

Section: ) Two-step Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the CL of the baseline set was determined individually to assign the participant to the correct group. This method has been used in several studies [28,33,[37][38][39][40][41].…”

Section: ) Two-step Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

Ruit

Grey

2019

Brain Stimulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A trend in the non-invasive brain stimulation literature is to assess the outcome of an intervention using a responder analysis whereby participants are di-or trichotomised in order that they may be classified as either responders or non-responders. Objective: Examine the extent of the Type I error in motor evoked potential (MEP) data subjected to responder analyses. Methods: Seven sets of 30 MEPs were recorded from the first dorsal interosseous muscle in 52 healthy volunteers. Four classification techniques were used classify the participants as responders or nonresponders: (1) the two-step cluster analysis, (2) Dichotomised thresholding, (3) relative method and (4) baseline variance method. Results: Despite the lack of any intervention, a significant number of participants were classified as responders (21-71%). Conclusion: This study highlights the very large Type I error associated with dichotomising continuous variables such as the TMS MEP.

show abstract

Variability in Response to Quadripulse Stimulation of the Motor Cortex

Abstract: The IBI, total duration of the procedure and pulse waveform strongly affected the magnitude or duration of the plasticity induced by QPS. In this cohort, 80% of subjects responded to excitatory QPS as expected.

Cited by 61 publications

References 28 publications

The effects of individualised intermittent theta burst stimulation in the prefrontal cortex: A TMS‐EEG study

The effects of individualised intermittent theta burst stimulation in the prefrontal cortex: A TMS‐EEG study

Variability in non-invasive brain stimulation studies: Reasons and results

False positives associated with responder/non-responder analyses based on motor evoked potentials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About