0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Examining short interval intracortical inhibition with different transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced current directions in ALS

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • SICI measured using posterior-to-anterior induced current direction (SICI PA) has been reported to be lower in ALS.

          • We find both SICI PA and SICI recorded with anterior-to-posterior induced current direction (SICI AP) are lower in ALS.

          • SICI PA and SICI AP do not correlate in ALS or controls, indicating that they reflect distinct physiological processes.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To establish if induced current direction across the motor cortex alters the sensitivity of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS)-evoked short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) as an ALS biomarker.

          Methods

          Threshold tracking-TMS was undertaken in 35 people with ALS and 39 controls. Using a coil orientation which induces posterior-anterior (PA)-directed current across the motor cortex, SICI (1 ms and 3 ms interstimulus intervals) and intracortical facilitation (ICF, 10 ms interstimulus interval) were recorded. SICI 3ms was also recorded using a coil orientation which induces anterior-posterior (AP)-directed current across the motor cortex.

          Results

          At group level, SICI 3ms-PA (AUROC = 0.7), SICI 3ms-AP (AUROC = 0.8) and SICI 1ms (AUROC = 0.66) were substantially lower in those with ALS, although there was considerable interindividual heterogeneity. Averaging across interstimulus intervals (ISIs) marginally improved SICI PA sensitivity (AUROC = 0.76). Averaging SICI values across ISIs and orientations into a single SICI measure did not substantially improve sensitivity (AUROC = 0.81) compared to SICI 3ms-AP alone. SICI 3ms-AP and SICI 3ms-PA did not significantly correlate (rho = 0.19, p = 0.313), while SICI 1ms-PA and SICI 3ms-PA did (rho = 0.37, p = 0.006). Further, those with ALS with the lowest SICI 3ms-PA were not those with the lowest SICI 3ms-AP. ICF was similar between groups (AUROC = 0.50).

          Conclusions

          SICI PA and SICI AP are uncorrelated measures of motor cortical inhibitory functions which are useful as distinct, unequally affected, measures of disinhibition in ALS.

          Significance

          Examining both SICI PA and SICI AP may facilitate more comprehensive characterisation of motor cortical disinhibition in ALS.

          Related collections

          Most cited references45

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples)

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Asymptotic Theory of Certain "Goodness of Fit" Criteria Based on Stochastic Processes

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Corticocortical inhibition in human motor cortex.

              1. In ten normal volunteers, a transcranial magnetic or electric stimulus that was subthreshold for evoking an EMG response in relaxed muscles was used to condition responses evoked by a later, suprathreshold magnetic or electric test shock. In most experiments the test stimulus was given to the lateral part of the motor strip in order to evoke EMG responses in the first dorsal interosseous muscle (FDI). 2. A magnetic conditioning stimulus over the hand area of cortex could suppress responses produced in the relaxed FDI by a suprathreshold magnetic test stimulus at interstimulus intervals of 1-6 ms. At interstimulus intervals of 10 and 15 ms, the test response was facilitated. 3. Using a focal magnetic stimulus we explored the effects of moving the conditioning stimulus to different scalp locations while maintaining the magnetic test coil at one site. If the conditioning coil was moved anterior or posterior to the motor strip there was less suppression of test responses in the FDI. In contrast, stimulation at the vertex could suppress FDI responses by an amount comparable to that seen with stimulation over the hand area. With the positions of the two coils reversed, conditioning stimuli over the hand area suppressed responses evoked in leg muscles by vertex test shocks. 4. The intensity of both conditioning and test shocks influenced the amount of suppression. Small test responses were more readily suppressed than large responses. The best suppression was seen with small conditioning stimuli (0.7-0.9 times motor threshold in relaxed muscle); increasing the intensity to motor threshold or above resulted in less suppression or even facilitation. 5. Two experiments suggested that the suppression was produced by an action on cortical, rather than spinal excitability. First, a magnetic conditioning stimulus over the hand area failed to produce any suppression of responses evoked in active hand muscles by a small (approximately 200 V, 50 microsecond time constant) anodal electric test shock. Second, a vertex conditioning shock had no effect on forearm flexor H reflexes even though responses in the same muscles produced by magnetic cortical test shocks were readily suppressed at appropriate interstimulus intervals. 6. Small anodal electric conditioning stimuli were much less effective in suppressing magnetic test responses than either magnetic or cathodal electric conditioning shocks.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Clin Neurophysiol Pract
                Clin Neurophysiol Pract
                Clinical Neurophysiology Practice
                Elsevier
                2467-981X
                13 March 2024
                2024
                13 March 2024
                : 9
                : 120-129
                Affiliations
                [a ]Discipline of Physiology, School of Medicine, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Ireland
                [b ]Academic Unit of Neurology, School of Medicine, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Ireland
                [c ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Otto-von-Guericke University, Magdeburg, Germany
                [d ]Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Ireland
                [e ]School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast
                [f ]Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Discipline of Physiology, School of Medicine, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Ireland. mcmackr@ 123456tcd.ie
                [1]

                Joint last authorship.

                Article
                S2467-981X(24)00012-X
                10.1016/j.cnp.2024.03.001
                11002888
                38595691
                9cc380ce-c637-4440-93c3-7010da65d598
                © 2024 International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology. Published by Elsevier B.V.

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 13 December 2023
                : 21 February 2024
                : 3 March 2024
                Categories
                Research Paper

                amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,transcranial magnetic stimulation,threshold tracking,short-interval intracortical inhibition,intracortical facilitation,coil orientation

                Comments

                Comment on this article