Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Does pericentral mu-rhythm "power" corticomotor excitability? - a matter of EEG perspective

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Safety Evaluation of a New Setup for Transcranial Electric Stimulation during Magnetic Resonance Imaging

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Transcranial focused ultrasound stimulation with high spatial resolution

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Guidelines for TMS/tES Clinical Services and Research through the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Probing EEG activity in the targeted cortex after focal transcranial electrical stimulation

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Reward signalling in brainstem nuclei under fluctuating blood glucose

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. A Bayesian reanalysis of the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral carriage in patients with COVID-19

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: Electroencephalography (EEG) and single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (spTMS) of the primary motor hand area (M1-HAND) have been combined to explore whether the instantaneous expression of pericentral mu-rhythm drives fluctuations in corticomotor excitability, but this line of research has yielded diverging results.

OBJECTIVES: To re-assess the relationship between the mu-rhythm power expressed in left pericentral cortex and the amplitude of motor potentials (MEP) evoked with spTMS in left M1-HAND.

METHODS: 15 non-preselected healthy young participants received spTMS to the motor hot spot of left M1-HAND. Regional expression of mu-rhythm was estimated online based on a radial source at motor hotspot and informed the timing of spTMS which was applied either during epochs belonging to the highest or lowest quartile of regionally expressed mu-power. Using MEP amplitude as dependent variable, we computed a linear mixed-effects model, which included mu-power and mu-phase at the time of stimulation and the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) as fixed effects and subject as a random effect. Mu-phase was estimated by post-hoc sorting of trials into four discrete phase bins. We performed a follow-up analysis on the same EEG-triggered MEP data set in which we isolated mu-power at the sensor level using a Laplacian montage centered on the electrode above the M1-HAND.

RESULTS: Pericentral mu-power traced as radial source at motor hot spot did not significantly modulate the MEP, but mu-power determined by the surface Laplacian did, showing a positive relation between mu-power and MEP amplitude. In neither case, there was an effect of mu-phase on MEP amplitude.

CONCLUSION: The relationship between cortical oscillatory activity and cortical excitability is complex and minor differences in the methodological choices may critically affect sensitivity.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBrain Stimulation
Vol/bind14
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)713-722
Antal sider10
ISSN1935-861X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1 maj 2021

ID: 64828947