方法文章

通过单脉冲经颅磁刺激测量对侧静息期以研究初级运动皮层的皮质脊髓抑制

DOI:

10.3791/64231

2022年8月23日

本文内容

摘要

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

对侧静息期(cSP)评估是一种有前景的生物标志物,可用于评估皮层兴奋性及治疗反应。本文展示了一种用于研究初级运动皮层(M1)对上肢和下肢脊髓运动通路抑制作用的cSP评估方案。

摘要

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

对侧静息期(cSP)是指在运动诱发电位(MEP)出现后,通过肌电图(EMG)记录到的背景肌电活动受到抑制的一段时期。为获得该指标,需在受试者对目标肌肉进行标准化自主收缩的同时,对所选目标肌肉对应的初级运动皮层(M1)施加超阈值的经颅磁刺激(TMS)脉冲以诱发MEP。cSP是MEP之后发生的抑制性机制的结果;其前约50毫秒主要反映脊髓水平的抑制,之后则反映皮层水平的抑制。研究者已尝试深入理解cSP背后的神经生物学机制,以验证其作为多种神经精神疾病潜在的诊断性、替代性及预测性生物标志物的价值。因此,本文介绍了一种用于测量上下肢M1对侧静息期的方法,内容包括目标肌肉的选择、电极放置、线圈定位、自主收缩程度的测定方法、刺激强度设置以及数据分析,以获得具有代表性的结果。本文的教育目标是为上下肢cSP实验提供一种可行、可靠且可重复的操作流程的可视化指导,并讨论该技术在实际应用中的若干挑战。

引言

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

静息期(SP)是指在持续肌肉收缩期间,经颅磁刺激(TMS)诱发运动诱发电位(MEP)之后出现的一段肌电图(EMG)静息时段。阈上强度的TMS脉冲可施加于目标肌肉对侧或同侧的初级运动皮层(M1),而目标肌肉正是记录EMG活动的肌肉,由此产生两种现象:对侧静息期(cSP)和同侧静息期(iSP)。

尽管iSP和cSP具有相似的特征,但它们可能反映了略有不同的成分。前者被认为反映了跨胼胝体抑制,因此完全起源于皮层1,2。相反,cSP被研究作为皮质脊髓抑制的可能替代指标,最可能由初级运动皮层(M1)内γ-氨基丁酸(GABA)B受体介导3,4,5

先前的研究发现,口服增强GABA的成分后,皮层静息期(cSP)持续时间延长,这支持了cSP在GABA介导通路中的作用5,6,7,8。然而,脊髓过程也参与调节其持续时间。cSP的早期阶段(<50 ms)与H反射值降低相关3,H反射由外周神经环路产生,用于量化脊髓神经元的兴奋性9。人们认为,脊髓处理通过Renshaw细胞的激活、运动神经元的后超极化以及脊髓中间神经元的突触后抑制来实现10,11,12,13,14

尽管脊髓有贡献,皮质静息期(cSP)主要源于皮质抑制性神经元的激活,这些神经元负责产生cSP的后期部分(50–200 ms)3,10,13,15,16。在这方面,cSP持续时间的早期部分与脊髓抑制机制相关,而较长的cSP则需要更强的皮质抑制机制3,13,17,18

因此,皮质脊髓静默期(cSP)是神经系统疾病导致皮质脊髓功能不良适应的一个有前景的生物标志物候选指标,较长的cSP持续时间可能反映皮质脊髓抑制增强,反之亦然5,11。相应地,既往研究已发现cSP持续时间与肌张力障碍、帕金森病、慢性疼痛、脑卒中以及其他神经退行性和精神疾病之间存在关联19,20,21,22。例如,在一项膝骨关节炎队列研究中,较高的皮质内抑制(以cSP为指标)与较年轻年龄、更严重的软骨退变以及蒙特利尔认知评估量表中的较低认知表现相关23。此外,cSP的变化还可纵向反映治疗反应和运动功能恢复情况24,25,26,27,28,29,30

尽管皮质静息期(cSP)在神经精神疾病领域具有广阔的应用前景,但其评估面临的一个挑战是,cSP对实验方案的微小变化可能过于敏感。例如,cSP持续时间(约100–300 ms)11 在上肢与下肢之间存在差异。Salerno 等人在一组纤维肌痛患者中发现,第一背侧骨间肌(FDI)的平均cSP持续时间为121.2 ms(±32.5),而胫前肌(TA)为75.5 ms(±21)31。因此,现有文献中用于诱发cSP的参数存在诸多差异,这反过来损害了研究间的可比性,并阻碍了其向临床实践的转化。在同一类人群中,不同研究在用于刺激初级运动皮层(M1)的超阈值经颅磁刺激(TMS)脉冲设置以及目标肌肉的选择等方面,实验方案也存在异质性。此外,研究人员往往未能充分报告其方案中所使用的参数。

因此,本研究的目的是提供一种可视化指南,介绍如何应用一种可行、可靠且易于重复的皮质静息期(cSP)方案,以评估上肢和下肢的M1皮质脊髓兴奋性,并讨论该操作过程中的实际方法学挑战。此外,为了帮助阐明参数选择的依据,我们通过Pubmed/MEDLINE进行了非 exhaustive 的文献回顾,使用检索词“Rehabilitation (Mesh) or rehabilitation or chronic pain or stroke”以及“transcranial magnetic stimulation and single pulse or cortical silent period”等术语,查找在慢性疼痛和康复人群中的cSP相关已发表论文。文献提取未设定纳入标准,汇总结果仅用于示例说明,见表1

访问受限。请登录或开始试用以查看此内容。

方案

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

本方案涉及人体受试者研究,符合当地伦理委员会的机构和伦理准则以及《赫尔辛基宣言》。研究已获得受试者知情同意,允许使用其数据。

1. 实验前准备步骤

  1. 受试者筛查。对受试者进行颅内植入物、癫痫史、惊厥史及妊娠情况的筛查。使用问卷指南以确保符合最新的安全防护措施32
    1. 对于颅内植入铁磁性材料(如弹片、动脉瘤夹或焊接碎片)的个体,禁止使用经颅磁刺激(TMS)传递电磁脉冲。对有较高惊厥风险的个体应采取预防措施。
    2. 经颅磁刺激评估对孕妇胎儿无已知风险,但建议在处理该人群时采取保守态度。经颅磁刺激在儿科人群中应用是安全的,但在某些发育阶段(如囟门闭合、皮层兴奋性成熟以及外耳道生长)应谨慎操作33
  2. 材料准备。除经颅磁刺激仪和肌电图(EMG)设备外,本实验还需准备泳帽、酒精棉片(含70%异丙醇)、导电凝胶、已开启并安装好肌电图软件的计算机,以及适用于目标肌肉的测力计(参见材料表)。
    ​注意:泳帽具有成本低、易获取的优点,同时仍可实现可靠且可重复的经颅磁刺激评估,且不会因在受试者头部做标记而引起不适。

2. 对患者的适当指导

  1. 说明该操作的基本步骤以及所需时间。
  2. 指导受试者保持清醒状态,但不要进行需要额外注意力和/或集中精力的认知活动(例如数学计算、冥想等),并告知其可能会出现手部/下颌抽动或其他可能的副作用。此类事件对于缺乏经验的受试者而言可能显得意外,从而影响操作的顺利进行。
    ​注意:单脉冲和双脉冲经颅磁刺激(TMS)仅与轻度、短暂的不良事件相关,包括头痛、局部疼痛、颈部疼痛、牙痛和感觉异常。癫痫发作极为罕见,未发现其他严重不良事件33。为增加安全性,建议提供耳塞以防止有害声音的影响,并使用咬合垫以防范可能发生的咬肌收缩34

3. 实验步骤(图1

  1. 选择用于放置电极的肌肉。
    1. 让受试者将手置于桌面上,呈俯卧位。选择位于第一和第二掌骨之间的固有拇对掌肌(FDI肌)。为确定FDI肌的位置,嘱受试者在保持手部其余部分静止并贴于桌面的同时,对抗阻力外展示指,检查者在此过程中触诊该区域。
    2. 暴露选定区域。必要时使用一次性剃须刀剃除该区域毛发,以改善电极与皮肤的接触,并用酒精棉片清洁该区域,去除皮肤油脂及其他可能增加阻抗的因素。确认有足够的裸露皮肤,以确保与电极充分接触。
      注意:若评估下肢活动,应将电极放置于胫骨前肌(TA 肌)。该肌肉位于胫骨外侧,接近皮肤表层,可通过踝关节背屈动作进行识别。
  2. 放置表面肌电图电极
    1. 暴露并清洁区域后,将导电凝胶涂抹至通道的每个电极上,以确保良好的阻抗。
    2. 将负极置于第一背侧骨间肌(FDI肌)肌腹(肌腹的中心或最突出的隆起处),正极置于远端指间关节,电极间距至少为1.5 cm。参考电极(中性电极)置于腕部尺骨茎突处。
      注意:运动终板、肌腱或其他活动肌肉的存在可能影响记录的稳定性,因此应避免选择这些部位35对于胫骨前肌,电极应放置在连接腓骨尖与内踝尖的连线的三分之一处。每个电极的两极之间保持20 mm的距离,并将参考电极置于踝部。
  3. 确定所需的肌肉收缩力
    1. 使用数字式握力计和四棱锥形支撑装置,以尽量减少机械形变,并提高对微弱收缩的敏感性。
    2. 将测力计在锥体支撑的帮助下置于第一和第二手指之间。确保第三、第四和第五手指静止放在桌面上,而第一手指st 和 2nd 产生捏合运动的力。
    3. 在固定位置下,要求受试者用食指按压测力计,并用食指侧面抵住棱锥侧面,以最大力量捏紧测力计-棱锥系统,使第一背侧骨间肌(FDI)产生强烈收缩。
    4. 以该数值为参考,确定最大力量的20%。受试者需练习维持目标力量在最大自主收缩力(MVC)的20%水平,并允许在15%–25% MVC范围内波动。
      注意:若无法获得可捕捉所研究的孤立肌肉活动的测力计,可使用肌电图(EMG)反馈来标准化力量。记录软件将测量对应于受试者最大力量的峰-峰值最大振幅,并以此值为参考确定20%最大自主收缩力(MVC)。受试者可在达到20%时接收视觉和/或听觉提示。
  4. 热点搜索的初始位置确定
    1. 在受试者头部戴上泳帽,所有参考点都将标记在泳帽上。
    2. 从鼻根点(前额与鼻根之间的点)到枕外隆凸点(枕部最突出的点)测量头部的矢状周长,将该数值除以二,并在头部标记出此中点位置。
    3. 标记患者鼻根、枕外隆凸、左右外耳道耳廓及左右眶上嵴的位置。此举旨在确认实验过程中头帽未发生移位,以及确保在未来实验中头帽在患者头部的位置保持一致。
    4. 如上所述,测量耳屏至耳屏的距离,并在其中点处做一标记。标记该中点与上述连线的交点,此点即为头顶点(Cz)。
    5. 从头顶点开始,沿矢状中线平行向对侧(即所选肌肉的对侧)横向移动5 cm。该标记点大致对应于手部运动皮层所在冠状面的初级运动皮层(M1)。将此位置作为寻找热点区域的首个起始点。
    6. 热点是运动皮层中可检测到最低运动阈值的区域。将刺激强度设为较低水平(例如,最大刺激输出 [MSO] 的 30%),通过对第一个位置施加多个脉冲来开始搜索。
    7. 以较小的强度递增方式继续刺激,直至确定能够引发肌电图(EMG)记录到反应(即运动诱发电位,MEP)的最低刺激强度。施加刺激时,将双绕线圈(figure-of-eight coil)相对于正中矢状线呈45°角放置,线圈手柄朝向受试者后方。
    8. 为确保识别出最佳位点,围绕第一个位点在其前方1 cm、外侧1 cm、内侧1 cm和后方1 cm处依次测试约3个运动诱发电位(MEP)。根据需要重复此过程,直至获得稳定的反应;始终选择诱发出最大MEP的位点36.
    9. 找到热点区域后,标记患者头部(泳帽)上的该位置。在本次实验及后续可能的随访中均使用此位置。注意避免因额外压力导致受试者不适。用双手支撑线圈,固定于受试者头部。
  5. 确定静息运动阈值(RMT)
    1. 将运动阈值估计为诱发出可检测到的最小振幅(通常至少为50–100 µV)的运动诱发电位(MEP)所需的最低刺激强度。
    2. 为确定运动阈值,在热点位置施加10次连续刺激,选择在50%的试验中于目标肌肉上引出峰-峰振幅至少为50 µV的运动诱发电位(MEP)的最低刺激强度。
      注意:该方案可在目标肌肉静息状态下(静息运动阈值 [RMT])或主动收缩状态下(主动运动阈值 [AMT])进行。两者均可进一步用作超阈值经颅磁刺激(TMS)脉冲的参考依据。由于AMT的测定依赖于最大自主收缩(MVC)的标准化,其变异性较大,因此在需要多次评估的纵向研究中可能存在问题。
  6. CSP 实验方案
    1. 向目标肌肉在持续性自主收缩期间施加阈上刺激以诱发出运动诱发电位(MEPs)。
    2. 以静息运动阈值(RMT)的120%为刺激强度(SI),每次刺激间隔10秒,共给予10次刺激。在施加刺激过程中,要求患者维持目标肌肉最大自主收缩力的20%,该力度应事先通过测力计进行练习确定。
    3. 为确保完整捕捉到脊髓休克期(SP),需确认肌电图(EMG)时间窗足够长,能够记录长达400 ms的EMG活动。根据所研究疾病的差异,受试者有时可能需要更高的刺激强度(SIs),才能成功获得cSP。

访问受限。请登录或开始试用以查看此内容。

结果

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

按照逐步操作流程后,给予超阈值的经颅磁刺激脉冲(运动阈值的120%)将在目标肌肉的肌电图记录中引出可观察到的运动诱发电位(MEP),并随后出现约150毫秒至300毫秒的背景肌电活动抑制期(图2)。根据该肌电图模式,可计算皮质抑制期(cSP)的相关参数。最常报告的结果包括相对抑制期和绝对抑制期的持续时间(单位为毫秒)。相对抑制期从MEP起始点测量至肌电活动重新出现的时间点。另一种方法是使用放大的运动刺激输出(MSO = 运动阈值的120%,依据本实验方案)来确定相对抑制期的起始点。由于在神经网络水平的真实起始点无法确定,建议选择MEP起始点作为初始时间点,以提高实验的可靠性13。另一方面,绝对抑制期可从MEP结束点测量至自主肌电活动重新出现的起始点。例如,可采用受试者静息状态下的肌电活动记录作为定性比较的参考。这些时间参数可通过人工识别或使用自动化软件进行确定37

准确计算皮质 silent 期(cSP)的一个基本方法学问题是如...

访问受限。请登录或开始试用以查看此内容。

讨论

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

诱发MEP和SP的默认刺激强度可能因人群而异。在健康个体中,低至80% RMT的刺激强度已可诱发皮质静息期(cSP)。39,但针对健康人群和患者群体的研究仍采用了高达150% RMT的强度49,50,51尽管这种异质性可能源于目标人群本身的特性,但不应忽视不同SI值已显示可独立(与肌肉收缩力无关)地决定MEP后静默期EMG活动的持续时间39,49,52110% 到 120% 的RMTs具有 在广泛的人群中成功诱发了SPs,同时对受试者仍具有可耐受性53,54然而,110% RMT可能处于临界水平...

访问受限。请登录或开始试用以查看此内容。

披露

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Abhishek Datta 是 Soterix Medical Inc. 的首席执行官、联合创始人兼首席技术官,Kamran Nazin 是该公司的首席产品官。Soterix Medical Inc. 为本视频出版物的制作提供了所用材料。其余作者声明不存在任何竞争性经济利益。

材料

本文使用的材料清单
姓名公司目录编号评论
酒精棉片Medline含70%异丙醇的消毒准备
导电凝胶Weaver and Company用于电极上
Echo PinchJTECH medical0902A302数字式测力计
Mega-EMGSoterix MedicalNS006201带内置软件的多通道数字肌电图仪
MEGA-TMS 线圈Soterix MedicalNS0632018字形经颅磁刺激线圈
Mega-TMS 刺激器Soterix Medical6990061单脉冲经颅磁刺激仪
Neuro-MEP.NETSoterix Medical用于分析肌肉电活动的肌电图软件
泳帽Kiefer

参考文献

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
  1. Li, J. Y., Lai, P. H., Chen, R. Transcallosal inhibition in patients with callosal infarction. Journal of Neurophysiology. 109 (3), 659-665 (2013).
  2. Wassermann, E. M., Fuhr, P., Cohen, L. G., Hallett, M. Effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation on ipsilateral muscles. Neurology. 41 (11), 1795-1799 (1991).
  3. Fuhr, P., Agostino, R., Hallett, M. Spinal motor neuron excitability during the silent period after cortical stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 81 (4), 257-262 (1991).
  4. Meyer, B. U., Röricht, S., Gräfin von Einsiedel, H., Kruggel, F., Weindl, A. Inhibitory and excitatory interhemispheric transfers between motor cortical areas in normal humans and patients with abnormalities of the corpus callosum. Brain. 118, 429-440 (1995).
  5. Hupfeld, K. E., Swanson, C. W., Fling, B. W., Seidler, R. D. TMS-induced silent periods: A review of methods and call for consistency). Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 346, 108950(2020).
  6. Siebner, H. R., Dressnandt, J., Auer, C., Conrad, B. Continuous intrathecal baclofen infusions induced a marked increase of the transcranially evoked silent period in a patient with generalized dystonia. Muscle Nerve. 21 (9), 1209-1212 (1998).
  7. Vallence, A. M., Smalley, E., Drummond, P. D., Hammond, G. R. Long-interval intracortical inhibition is asymmetric in young but not older adults. Journal of Neurophysiology. 118 (3), 1581-1590 (2017).
  8. Manconi, F. M., Syed, N. A., Floeter, M. K. Mechanisms underlying spinal motor neuron excitability during the cutaneous silent period in humans. Muscle Nerve. 21 (10), 1256-1264 (1998).
  9. Romanò, C., Schieppati, M. Reflex excitability of human soleus motoneurones during voluntary shortening or lengthening contractions. The Journal of Physiology. 390, 271-284 (1987).
  10. Cantello, R., Gianelli, M., Civardi, C., Mutani, R. Magnetic brain stimulation: the silent period after the motor evoked potential. Neurology. 42 (10), 1951-1959 (1992).
  11. Rossini, P. M., et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 126 (6), 1071-1107 (2015).
  12. Classen, J., Benecke, R. Inhibitory phenomena in individual motor units induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 97 (5), 264-274 (1995).
  13. Inghilleri, M., Berardelli, A., Cruccu, G., Manfredi, M. Silent period evoked by transcranial stimulation of the human cortex and cervicomedullary junction. The Journal of Physiology. 466, 521-534 (1993).
  14. Roick, H., von Giesen, H. J., Benecke, R. On the origin of the postexcitatory inhibition seen after transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in awake human subjects. Experimental Brain Research. 94 (3), 489-498 (1993).
  15. Chen, R., Lozano, A. M., Ashby, P. Mechanism of the silent period following transcranial magnetic stimulation. Evidence from epidural recordings. Experimental Brain Research. 128 (4), 539-542 (1999).
  16. Schnitzler, A., Benecke, R. The silent period after transcranial magnetic stimulation is of exclusive cortical origin: evidence from isolated cortical ischemic lesions in man. Neuroscience Letters. 180 (1), 41-45 (1994).
  17. Cantello, R., Tarletti, R., Civardi, C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and Parkinson's disease. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews. 38 (3), 309-327 (2002).
  18. Ziemann, U., Netz, J., Szelényi, A., Hömberg, V. Spinal and supraspinal mechanisms contribute to the silent period in the contracting soleus muscle after transcranial magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Neuroscience Letters. 156 (1-2), 167-171 (1993).
  19. Paci, M., Di Cosmo, G., Perrucci, M. G., Ferri, F., Costantini, M. Cortical silent period reflects individual differences in action stopping performance. Scientific Reports. 11 (1), 15158(2021).
  20. Poston, B., Kukke, S. N., Paine, R. W., Francis, S., Hallett, M. Cortical silent period duration and its implications for surround inhibition of a hand muscle. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 36 (7), 2964-2971 (2012).
  21. Vidor, L. P., et al. Association of anxiety with intracortical inhibition and descending pain modulation in chronic myofascial pain syndrome. BMC Neuroscience. 15, 42(2014).
  22. Bradnam, L., et al. Afferent inhibition and cortical silent periods in shoulder primary motor cortex and effect of a suprascapular nerve block in people experiencing chronic shoulder pain. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127 (1), 769-778 (2016).
  23. Simis, M., et al. Increased motor cortex inhibition as a marker of compensation to chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis. Scientific Reports. 11 (1), 24011(2021).
  24. List, J., et al. Cortical reorganization due to impaired cerebral autoregulation in individuals with occlusive processes of the internal carotid artery. Brain Stimulation. 7 (3), 381-387 (2014).
  25. Gray, W. A., Palmer, J. A., Wolf, S. L., Borich, M. R. Abnormal EEG responses to TMS during the cortical silent period are associated with hand function in chronic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair. 31 (7), 666-676 (2017).
  26. Braune, H. J., Fritz, C. Transcranial magnetic stimulation-evoked inhibition of voluntary muscle activity (silent period) is impaired in patients with ischemic hemispheric lesion. Stroke. 26 (4), 550-553 (1995).
  27. Goodwill, A. M., Teo, W. -P., Morgan, P., Daly, R. M., Kidgell, D. J. Bihemispheric-tDCS and upper limb rehabilitation improves retention of motor function in chronic stroke: A pilot study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 258(2016).
  28. Cincotta, M., et al. Suprathreshold 0.3 Hz repetitive TMS prolongs the cortical silent period: potential implications for therapeutic trials in epilepsy. Clinical Neurophysiology. 114 (10), 1827-1833 (2003).
  29. Langguth, B., et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of tinnitus: effects on cortical excitability. BMC Neuroscience. 8, 45(2007).
  30. Priori, A., et al. Rhythm-specific pharmacological modulation of subthalamic activity in Parkinson's disease. Experimental Neurology. 189 (2), 369-379 (2004).
  31. Salerno, A., et al. Motor cortical dysfunction disclosed by single and double magnetic stimulation in patients with fibromyalgia. Clinical Neurophysiology. 111 (6), 994-1001 (2000).
  32. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A. Screening questionnaire before TMS: an update. Clinical Neurophysiology. 122 (8), 1686(2011).
  33. Rossi, S., Hallett, M., Rossini, P. M., Pascual-Leone, A. Safety of, T.M.S.C.G. Safety, ethical considerations, and application guidelines for the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation in clinical practice and research. Clinical Neurophysiology. 120 (12), 2008-2039 (2009).
  34. Rossi, S., et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology. 132 (1), 269-306 (2021).
  35. Hermens, H. J., Freriks, B., Disselhorst-Klug, C., Rau, G. Development of recommendations for SEMG sensors and sensor placement procedures. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 10 (5), 361-374 (2000).
  36. Groppa, S., et al. A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 123 (5), 858-882 (2012).
  37. Daskalakis, Z. J., et al. An automated method to determine the transcranial magnetic stimulation-induced contralateral silent period. Clinical Neurophysiology. 114 (5), 938-944 (2003).
  38. Orth, M., Rothwell, J. C. The cortical silent period: intrinsic variability and relation to the waveform of the transcranial magnetic stimulation pulse. Clinical Neurophysiology. 115 (5), 1076-1082 (2004).
  39. Säisänen, L., et al. Factors influencing cortical silent period: optimized stimulus location, intensity and muscle contraction. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 169 (1), 231-238 (2008).
  40. Kojima, S., et al. Modulation of the cortical silent period elicited by single- and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation. BMC Neuroscience. 14 (1), 43(2013).
  41. Poston, B., Kukke, S. N., Paine, R. W., Francis, S., Hallett, M. Cortical silent period duration and its implications for surround inhibition of a hand muscle. The European Journal of Neuroscience. 36 (7), 2964-2971 (2012).
  42. Kimiskidis, V. K., et al. Silent period to transcranial magnetic stimulation: construction and properties of stimulus-response curves in healthy volunteers. Experimental Brain Research. 163 (1), 21-31 (2005).
  43. Chipchase, L., et al. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies using transcranial magnetic stimulation to study the motor system: an international consensus study. Clinical Neurophysiology. 123 (9), 1698-1704 (2012).
  44. Rossini, P. M., et al. Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: Basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology. 126 (6), 1071-1107 (2015).
  45. Zeugin, D., Ionta, S. Anatomo-Functional origins of the cortical silent period: Spotlight on the basal ganglia. Brain Sciences. 11 (6), 705(2021).
  46. Person, R. S., Kozhina, G. V. Investigation of the silent period by a poststimulus histogram method. Neurophysiology. 10 (2), 123-129 (1978).
  47. Stinear, C. M., Coxon, J. P., Byblow, W. D. Primary motor cortex and movement prevention: where Stop meets Go. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 33 (5), 662-673 (2009).
  48. Mathis, J., de Quervain, D., Hess, C. W. Dependence of the transcranially induced silent period on the 'instruction set' and the individual reaction time. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 109 (5), 426-435 (1998).
  49. Chandra, S. R., Issac, T. G., Nagaraju, B. C., Philip, M. A study of cortical excitability, central motor conduction, and cortical inhibition using single pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with early frontotemporal and Alzheimer's Dementia. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 38 (1), 25-30 (2016).
  50. Bocci, T., et al. Spinal direct current stimulation modulates short intracortical inhibition. Neuromodulation. 18 (8), 686-693 (2015).
  51. Zunhammer, M., et al. Modulation of human motor cortex excitability by valproate. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 215 (2), 277-280 (2011).
  52. Ho, K. H., Nithi, K., Mills, K. R. Covariation between human intrinsic hand muscles of the silent periods and compound muscle action potentials evoked by magnetic brain stimulation: evidence for common inhibitory connections. Experimental Brain Research. 122 (4), 433-440 (1998).
  53. Acler, M., Fiaschi, A., Manganotti, P. Long-term levodopa administration in chronic stroke patients. A clinical and neurophysiologic single-blind placebo-controlled cross-over pilot study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 27 (4), 277-283 (2009).
  54. Volz, M. S., et al. Dissociation of motor task-induced cortical excitability and pain perception changes in healthy volunteers. PLoS One. 7 (3), 34273(2012).
  55. Veldema, J., Nowak, D. A., Gharabaghi, A. Resting motor threshold in the course of hand motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 18 (1), 158(2021).
  56. Rossi, S., et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clinical Neurophysiology. 132 (1), 269-306 (2021).
  57. Ortu, E., et al. Primary motor cortex hyperexcitability in Fabry's disease. Clinical Neurophysiology. 124 (7), 1381-1389 (2013).
  58. Goodwill, A. M., Teo, W. P., Morgan, P., Daly, R. M., Kidgell, D. J. Bihemispheric-tDCS and upper limb rehabilitation improves retention of motor function in chronic stroke: A pilot study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 258(2016).
  59. Mayorga, T., et al. Motor-Evoked potentials of the abductor hallucis muscle and their relationship with foot arch functional anatomy. Journal of American Podiatric Medical Association. 107 (5), 467-470 (2017).
  60. Matsugi, A., et al. Cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation reduces the silent period on hand muscle electromyography during force control. Brain Science. 10 (2), 63(2020).
  61. van Kuijk, A. A., Pasman, J. W., Geurts, A. C., Hendricks, H. T. How salient is the silent period? The role of the silent period in the prognosis of upper extremity motor recovery after severe stroke. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology. 22 (1), 10-24 (2005).
  62. Wu, L., Goto, Y., Taniwaki, T., Kinukawa, N., Tobimatsu, S. Different patterns of excitation and inhibition of the small hand and forearm muscles from magnetic brain stimulation in humans. Clinical Neurophysiology. 113 (8), 1286-1294 (2002).
  63. Hunter, S. K., Todd, G., Butler, J. E., Gandevia, S. C., Taylor, J. L. Recovery from supraspinal fatigue is slowed in old adults after fatiguing maximal isometric contractions. Journal of Applied Physiology. 105 (4), 1199-1209 (2008).
  64. Yoon, T., Schlinder-Delap, B., Keller, M. L., Hunter, S. K. Supraspinal fatigue impedes recovery from a low-intensity sustained contraction in old adults. Journal of Applied Physiology. 112 (5), 849-858 (2012).
  65. Kennedy, D. S., McNeil, C. J., Gandevia, S. C., Taylor, J. L. Effects of fatigue on corticospinal excitability of the human knee extensors. Experimental Physiology. 101 (12), 1552-1564 (2016).
  66. Goodall, S., Howatson, G., Thomas, K. Modulation of specific inhibitory networks in fatigued locomotor muscles of healthy males. Experimental Brain Research. 236 (2), 463-473 (2018).
  67. Neva, J. L., et al. Multiple measures of corticospinal excitability are associated with clinical features of multiple sclerosis. Behavioural Brain Research. 297, 187-195 (2016).
  68. Caumo, W., et al. Motor cortex excitability and BDNF levels in chronic musculoskeletal pain according to structural pathology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 10, 357(2016).
  69. Chen, M., Deng, H., Schmidt, R. L., Kimberley, T. J. Low-Frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation targeted to premotor cortex followed by primary motor cortex modulates excitability differently than premotor cortex or primary motor cortex stimulation alone. Neuromodulation. 18 (8), 678-685 (2015).
  70. van Kuijk, A. A., et al. Definition dependent properties of the cortical silent period in upper-extremity muscles, a methodological study. Journal of Neuroengineering and Rehabilitation. 11, 1(2014).
  71. van Kuijk, A. A., et al. Stimulus-response characteristics of motor evoked potentials and silent periods in proximal and distal upper-extremity muscles. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 19 (4), 574-583 (2009).
  72. Vernillo, G., Temesi, J., Martin, M., Millet, G. Y. Mechanisms of fatigue and recovery in upper versus lower limbs in men. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 50 (2), 334-343 (2018).
  73. Chen, M., et al. Evaluation of the cortical silent period of the laryngeal motor cortex in healthy individuals. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 11, 88(2017).
  74. Masakado, Y., Akaboshi, K., Nagata, M., Kimura, A., Chino, N. Motor unit firing behavior in slow and fast contractions of the first dorsal interosseous muscle of healthy men. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. 97 (6), 290-295 (1995).
  75. Petersen, N. T., Pyndt, H. S., Nielsen, J. B. Investigating human motor control by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Experimental Brain Research. 152 (1), 1-16 (2003).
  76. Dharmadasa, T., et al. The effect of coil type and limb dominance in the assessment of lower-limb motor cortex excitability using TMS. Neuroscience Letters. 699, 84-90 (2019).
  77. Kesar, T. M., Stinear, J. W., Wolf, S. L. The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to evaluate cortical excitability of lower limb musculature: Challenges and opportunities. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. 36 (3), 333-348 (2018).
  78. Proessl, F., et al. Characterizing off-target corticospinal responses to double-cone transcranial magnetic stimulation. Experimental Brain Research. 239 (4), 1099-1110 (2021).
  79. Dharmadasa, T., et al. The effect of coil type and limb dominance in the assessment of lower-limb motor cortex excitability using TMS. Neuroscience Letters. 699, 84-90 (2019).
  80. Jung, N. H., et al. Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation does not decrease the variability of motor-evoked potentials. Brain Stimulation. 3 (2), 87-94 (2010).

访问受限。请登录或开始试用以查看此内容。

重印与许可

申请许可以重复使用本 JoVE 文章的文本或图表

申请许可

标签

相关文章