Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities
Background The extent to which short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) responds to low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains inconclusive with reports of increased, decreased and unchanged response following modulation. The aim of this study was to systematical...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.) Mass.), 2018-06, Vol.21 (4), p.368-375 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 375 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 368 |
| container_title | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.) |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Chen, Mo Lixandrão, Maíra C. Prudente, Cecília N. Summers, Rebekah L. S. Kimberley, Teresa J. |
| description | Background
The extent to which short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) responds to low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains inconclusive with reports of increased, decreased and unchanged response following modulation. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate if the variability of SICI following rTMS is explained by the interstimulus interval (ISI) and/or the conditioning stimulus intensity (CSI).
Methods
Two experiments with pretesting/posttesting and an rTMS session (1 Hz, 90% RMT, 900 pulses) were done. Experiment I (N = 15): SICI with multiple ISIs (1.0–4.0 msec, 0.2 msec increment). Experiment II (N = 15): SICI with CSIs (50–95% of RMT, 5% increment). In both experiments, the cortical silent period (cSP) was also collected.
Results
After low‐frequency rTMS, no significant change (p > 0.10) in SICI at any specific ISI or CSI was observed, nor did the optimal ISI or CSI change. However, a significant decrease was observed in SICI responses when assessed under the range of ISIs (p = 0.0001), but not CSIs. cSP inhibition increased significantly (p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/ner.12773 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6033639</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2018016005</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-66873482c7852ccb14f0eae0f917ac37bc48b216d40068e01380ac442f8f45223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kstu1DAUhiMEoqWw4AVQJDawSOtbnGSDVI1aqDQFqZe15TgnM64y9mAnU82OR-jL9IV4Es4kZQRIeOHb_53fx_ZJkreUHFNsJw7CMWVFwZ8lhzRneUYF4c9xTiqRFTSvDpJXMd4RQouKFS-TA1blUrKyOkwer5c-9OmF6yFsdLebBG1wy5pxtbS17a136RXEtXcRYtr7dO7vf_54OA_wfQBntiiuoUduA-lN0C4a7CzGX-qFQ8Gk171dDZ0enW5dAyG9HLrerjuYjo6jPsR9IjHVrkln3jXj8dYtRslFXEJ8nbxokYE3T-NRcnt-djP7ks2_fb6Ync4zIwTnmZRlwUXJTFHmzJiaipaABtJWtNCGF7URZc2obAQhsgRCeUk0hrK2bEXOGD9KPk2-66FeQWNg9zqdWge70mGrvLbqb8XZpVr4jZKEc8krNPjwZBA8vlXs1cpGA12nHfghKkZoSagkJEf0_T_onR-Cw-shJQWjOWcCqY8TZYKPMUC7T4YStSsGhcWgxmJA9t2f2e_J37-PwMkE3NsOtv93Ul_PribLX7qUxNQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2064215324</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Chen, Mo ; Lixandrão, Maíra C. ; Prudente, Cecília N. ; Summers, Rebekah L. S. ; Kimberley, Teresa J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Mo ; Lixandrão, Maíra C. ; Prudente, Cecília N. ; Summers, Rebekah L. S. ; Kimberley, Teresa J.</creatorcontrib><description>Background
The extent to which short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) responds to low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains inconclusive with reports of increased, decreased and unchanged response following modulation. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate if the variability of SICI following rTMS is explained by the interstimulus interval (ISI) and/or the conditioning stimulus intensity (CSI).
Methods
Two experiments with pretesting/posttesting and an rTMS session (1 Hz, 90% RMT, 900 pulses) were done. Experiment I (N = 15): SICI with multiple ISIs (1.0–4.0 msec, 0.2 msec increment). Experiment II (N = 15): SICI with CSIs (50–95% of RMT, 5% increment). In both experiments, the cortical silent period (cSP) was also collected.
Results
After low‐frequency rTMS, no significant change (p > 0.10) in SICI at any specific ISI or CSI was observed, nor did the optimal ISI or CSI change. However, a significant decrease was observed in SICI responses when assessed under the range of ISIs (p = 0.0001), but not CSIs. cSP inhibition increased significantly (p < 0.0015) for both experiments.
Conclusions
The optimal ISI or CSI did not shift or reveal SICI changes after inhibitory rTMS. However, when the whole curve of SICI responses were evaluated from a wide range of ISIs, a decrease in inhibition was found. The contrast between the results of individual ISI tests and the wide range of ISI assessment may be due to higher intersubject variability of SICI and/or sample size, rendering traditional SICI testing methods ineffective for measuring changes in inhibition. Further, it is possible that rTMS modulates GABAA and GABAB mediated inhibitory processes differently, which would explain the conflicting results for SICI and cSP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1094-7159</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-1403</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/ner.12773</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29566289</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Limited</publisher><subject>Adult ; Conditioning intensity ; Cortex ; Electromyography ; Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology ; Experiments ; Female ; Healthy Volunteers ; Humans ; Interstimulus interval ; Magnetic fields ; Male ; Motor Cortex - physiology ; Neural Inhibition - physiology ; neuromodulation ; Reaction Time - physiology ; short interval intracortical inhibition ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Transcranial magnetic stimulation ; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods ; Young Adult ; γ-Aminobutyric acid A receptors ; γ-Aminobutyric acid B receptors</subject><ispartof>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.), 2018-06, Vol.21 (4), p.368-375</ispartof><rights>2018 International Neuromodulation Society</rights><rights>2018 International Neuromodulation Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-66873482c7852ccb14f0eae0f917ac37bc48b216d40068e01380ac442f8f45223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-66873482c7852ccb14f0eae0f917ac37bc48b216d40068e01380ac442f8f45223</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29566289$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Mo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lixandrão, Maíra C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prudente, Cecília N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Rebekah L. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimberley, Teresa J.</creatorcontrib><title>Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities</title><title>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</title><addtitle>Neuromodulation</addtitle><description>Background
The extent to which short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) responds to low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains inconclusive with reports of increased, decreased and unchanged response following modulation. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate if the variability of SICI following rTMS is explained by the interstimulus interval (ISI) and/or the conditioning stimulus intensity (CSI).
Methods
Two experiments with pretesting/posttesting and an rTMS session (1 Hz, 90% RMT, 900 pulses) were done. Experiment I (N = 15): SICI with multiple ISIs (1.0–4.0 msec, 0.2 msec increment). Experiment II (N = 15): SICI with CSIs (50–95% of RMT, 5% increment). In both experiments, the cortical silent period (cSP) was also collected.
Results
After low‐frequency rTMS, no significant change (p > 0.10) in SICI at any specific ISI or CSI was observed, nor did the optimal ISI or CSI change. However, a significant decrease was observed in SICI responses when assessed under the range of ISIs (p = 0.0001), but not CSIs. cSP inhibition increased significantly (p < 0.0015) for both experiments.
Conclusions
The optimal ISI or CSI did not shift or reveal SICI changes after inhibitory rTMS. However, when the whole curve of SICI responses were evaluated from a wide range of ISIs, a decrease in inhibition was found. The contrast between the results of individual ISI tests and the wide range of ISI assessment may be due to higher intersubject variability of SICI and/or sample size, rendering traditional SICI testing methods ineffective for measuring changes in inhibition. Further, it is possible that rTMS modulates GABAA and GABAB mediated inhibitory processes differently, which would explain the conflicting results for SICI and cSP.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Conditioning intensity</subject><subject>Cortex</subject><subject>Electromyography</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Healthy Volunteers</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interstimulus interval</subject><subject>Magnetic fields</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Motor Cortex - physiology</subject><subject>Neural Inhibition - physiology</subject><subject>neuromodulation</subject><subject>Reaction Time - physiology</subject><subject>short interval intracortical inhibition</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Transcranial magnetic stimulation</subject><subject>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><subject>γ-Aminobutyric acid A receptors</subject><subject>γ-Aminobutyric acid B receptors</subject><issn>1094-7159</issn><issn>1525-1403</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kstu1DAUhiMEoqWw4AVQJDawSOtbnGSDVI1aqDQFqZe15TgnM64y9mAnU82OR-jL9IV4Es4kZQRIeOHb_53fx_ZJkreUHFNsJw7CMWVFwZ8lhzRneUYF4c9xTiqRFTSvDpJXMd4RQouKFS-TA1blUrKyOkwer5c-9OmF6yFsdLebBG1wy5pxtbS17a136RXEtXcRYtr7dO7vf_54OA_wfQBntiiuoUduA-lN0C4a7CzGX-qFQ8Gk171dDZ0enW5dAyG9HLrerjuYjo6jPsR9IjHVrkln3jXj8dYtRslFXEJ8nbxokYE3T-NRcnt-djP7ks2_fb6Ync4zIwTnmZRlwUXJTFHmzJiaipaABtJWtNCGF7URZc2obAQhsgRCeUk0hrK2bEXOGD9KPk2-66FeQWNg9zqdWge70mGrvLbqb8XZpVr4jZKEc8krNPjwZBA8vlXs1cpGA12nHfghKkZoSagkJEf0_T_onR-Cw-shJQWjOWcCqY8TZYKPMUC7T4YStSsGhcWgxmJA9t2f2e_J37-PwMkE3NsOtv93Ul_PribLX7qUxNQ</recordid><startdate>201806</startdate><enddate>201806</enddate><creator>Chen, Mo</creator><creator>Lixandrão, Maíra C.</creator><creator>Prudente, Cecília N.</creator><creator>Summers, Rebekah L. S.</creator><creator>Kimberley, Teresa J.</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201806</creationdate><title>Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities</title><author>Chen, Mo ; Lixandrão, Maíra C. ; Prudente, Cecília N. ; Summers, Rebekah L. S. ; Kimberley, Teresa J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4433-66873482c7852ccb14f0eae0f917ac37bc48b216d40068e01380ac442f8f45223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Conditioning intensity</topic><topic>Cortex</topic><topic>Electromyography</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Healthy Volunteers</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interstimulus interval</topic><topic>Magnetic fields</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Motor Cortex - physiology</topic><topic>Neural Inhibition - physiology</topic><topic>neuromodulation</topic><topic>Reaction Time - physiology</topic><topic>short interval intracortical inhibition</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Transcranial magnetic stimulation</topic><topic>Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><topic>γ-Aminobutyric acid A receptors</topic><topic>γ-Aminobutyric acid B receptors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Mo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lixandrão, Maíra C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prudente, Cecília N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Rebekah L. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimberley, Teresa J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Mo</au><au>Lixandrão, Maíra C.</au><au>Prudente, Cecília N.</au><au>Summers, Rebekah L. S.</au><au>Kimberley, Teresa J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities</atitle><jtitle>Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.)</jtitle><addtitle>Neuromodulation</addtitle><date>2018-06</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>368</spage><epage>375</epage><pages>368-375</pages><issn>1094-7159</issn><eissn>1525-1403</eissn><abstract>Background
The extent to which short interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) responds to low‐frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) remains inconclusive with reports of increased, decreased and unchanged response following modulation. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate if the variability of SICI following rTMS is explained by the interstimulus interval (ISI) and/or the conditioning stimulus intensity (CSI).
Methods
Two experiments with pretesting/posttesting and an rTMS session (1 Hz, 90% RMT, 900 pulses) were done. Experiment I (N = 15): SICI with multiple ISIs (1.0–4.0 msec, 0.2 msec increment). Experiment II (N = 15): SICI with CSIs (50–95% of RMT, 5% increment). In both experiments, the cortical silent period (cSP) was also collected.
Results
After low‐frequency rTMS, no significant change (p > 0.10) in SICI at any specific ISI or CSI was observed, nor did the optimal ISI or CSI change. However, a significant decrease was observed in SICI responses when assessed under the range of ISIs (p = 0.0001), but not CSIs. cSP inhibition increased significantly (p < 0.0015) for both experiments.
Conclusions
The optimal ISI or CSI did not shift or reveal SICI changes after inhibitory rTMS. However, when the whole curve of SICI responses were evaluated from a wide range of ISIs, a decrease in inhibition was found. The contrast between the results of individual ISI tests and the wide range of ISI assessment may be due to higher intersubject variability of SICI and/or sample size, rendering traditional SICI testing methods ineffective for measuring changes in inhibition. Further, it is possible that rTMS modulates GABAA and GABAB mediated inhibitory processes differently, which would explain the conflicting results for SICI and cSP.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><pmid>29566289</pmid><doi>10.1111/ner.12773</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1094-7159 |
| ispartof | Neuromodulation (Malden, Mass.), 2018-06, Vol.21 (4), p.368-375 |
| issn | 1094-7159 1525-1403 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6033639 |
| source | MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Adult Conditioning intensity Cortex Electromyography Evoked Potentials, Motor - physiology Experiments Female Healthy Volunteers Humans Interstimulus interval Magnetic fields Male Motor Cortex - physiology Neural Inhibition - physiology neuromodulation Reaction Time - physiology short interval intracortical inhibition Statistics, Nonparametric Transcranial magnetic stimulation Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation - methods Young Adult γ-Aminobutyric acid A receptors γ-Aminobutyric acid B receptors |
| title | Short Interval Intracortical Inhibition Responses to Low‐Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Under Multiple Interstimulus Intervals and Conditioning Intensities |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T07%3A31%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Short%20Interval%20Intracortical%20Inhibition%20Responses%20to%20Low%E2%80%90Frequency%20Repetitive%20Transcranial%20Magnetic%20Stimulation%20Under%20Multiple%20Interstimulus%20Intervals%20and%20Conditioning%20Intensities&rft.jtitle=Neuromodulation%20(Malden,%20Mass.)&rft.au=Chen,%20Mo&rft.date=2018-06&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=368&rft.epage=375&rft.pages=368-375&rft.issn=1094-7159&rft.eissn=1525-1403&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/ner.12773&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2018016005%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2064215324&rft_id=info:pmid/29566289&rfr_iscdi=true |