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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{510aff512e824d4b81e4b96c8ed89bcd,
title = "No trace of phase: Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "EEG-Triggered phase targeting, Electroencephalography, Mu rhythm, Pericentral oscillation, Temporal and spatial neuronavigation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation",
author = "Madsen, {Kristoffer Hougaard} and Karabanov, {Anke Ninija} and Krohne, {L{\ae}rke Gebser} and Safeldt, {Mads Gylling} and Leo Tomasevic and Siebner, {Hartwig Roman}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.brs.2019.05.005",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "1261--1270",
journal = "Brain Stimulation",
issn = "1935-861X",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - No trace of phase

T2 - Corticomotor excitability is not tuned by phase of pericentral mu-rhythm

AU - Madsen, Kristoffer Hougaard

AU - Karabanov, Anke Ninija

AU - Krohne, Lærke Gebser

AU - Safeldt, Mads Gylling

AU - Tomasevic, Leo

AU - Siebner, Hartwig Roman

N1 - Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - EEG-Triggered phase targeting

KW - Electroencephalography

KW - Mu rhythm

KW - Pericentral oscillation

KW - Temporal and spatial neuronavigation

KW - Transcranial magnetic stimulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066075278&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.brs.2019.05.005

DO - 10.1016/j.brs.2019.05.005

M3 - Journal article

VL - 12

SP - 1261

EP - 1270

JO - Brain Stimulation

JF - Brain Stimulation

SN - 1935-861X

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 57329071