Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{b2d8b3449b1f41c9b93c0487062f6576,
title = "Does pericentral mu-rhythm {"}power{"} corticomotor excitability? - a matter of EEG perspective",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "Brain-state dependent TMS, Gating-by-inhibition, Pericentral mu-rhymth, TMS-EEG",
author = "Karabanov, {Anke Ninija} and Madsen, {Kristoffer Hougaard} and Krohne, {L{\ae}rke Gebser} and Siebner, {Hartwig Roman}",
note = "Publisher Copyright: Copyright {\textcopyright} 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine",
year = "2021",
month = may,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.brs.2021.03.017",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "713--722",
journal = "Brain Stimulation",
issn = "1935-861X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does pericentral mu-rhythm "power" corticomotor excitability? - a matter of EEG perspective

AU - Karabanov, Anke Ninija

AU - Madsen, Kristoffer Hougaard

AU - Krohne, Lærke Gebser

AU - Siebner, Hartwig Roman

N1 - Publisher Copyright: Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

PY - 2021/5/1

Y1 - 2021/5/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Brain-state dependent TMS

KW - Gating-by-inhibition

KW - Pericentral mu-rhymth

KW - TMS-EEG

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107163440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.brs.2021.03.017

DO - 10.1016/j.brs.2021.03.017

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 33848678

VL - 14

SP - 713

EP - 722

JO - Brain Stimulation

JF - Brain Stimulation

SN - 1935-861X

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 64828947