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

No trace of phase: Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review


  1. Cochlear implant should not be absolute contraindication for electroconvulsive therapy and transcranial magnetic stimulation

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

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

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

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

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Structural changes induced by electroconvulsive therapy are associated with clinical outcome

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

BACKGROUND: The motor potentials evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) over the motor hand area (M1-HAND) show substantial inter-trial variability. Pericentral mu-rhythm oscillations, might contribute to inter-trial variability. Recent studies targeting mu-activity based on real-time electroencephalography (EEG) reported an influence of mu-power and mu-phase on the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) in a preselected group with strong pericentral mu-activity. Other studies that determined mu-power or mu-phase based on post-hoc trial sorting according in non-preselected individuals were largely negative.

OBJECTIVES: To reassess if cortico-spinal activity is modulated by the mu-rhythm, we applied single-pulse TMS to the M1-HAND conditional on the phase of the intrinsically expressed pericentral mu-rhythm in 14 non-preselected healthy young participants.

METHODS: TMS was given at 0, 90, 180, and 270° of the mu-phase. Based on the absence of effects of mu-phase or mu-power when analyzing the mean MEP amplitudes, we also computed a linear mixed effects model, which included mu-phase, mu-power, inter-stimulus interval (ISIs) as fixed effects, treating the subject factor as a random effect.

RESULTS: Mixed model analysis revealed a significant effect of mu-power and ISI, but no effect of mu-phase and no interactions. MEP amplitude scaled linearly with lower mu-power or longer ISIs, but these modulatory effects were very small relative to inter-trial MEP variability.

CONCLUSION: Our largely negative results are in agreement with previous offline TMS-EEG studies and point to a possible influence of ISI. Future research needs to clarify under which circumstances the responsiveness of human the M1-HAND to TMS depends on the synchronicity with mu-power and mu-phase.

TidsskriftBrain Stimulation
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)1261-1270
Antal sider10
StatusUdgivet - 1 sep. 2019

Bibliografisk note

Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

ID: 57329071