Symmetric corticospinal excitability and representation of vastus lateralis muscle in right-handed healthy subjects

Assessing the feasibility of mapping the tibialis anterior muscle with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation in neuro-oncologic patients

Mapping the lower extremity with navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) still remains challenging for the investigator. Clinical factors influencing leg mapping with nTMS have not been fully investigated yet. The aim of the study was to identify factors which influence the possibility of eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) from the tibialis anterior muscle (TA). Patient records, imaging, nTMS examinations and tractography were retrospectively evaluated. 48 nTMS examinations were performed in 46 brain tumor patients. Reproducible MEPs were recorded in 20 patients (41.67%). Younger age (p = 0.044) and absence of perifocal edema (p = 0.035, Cramer's V = 0.34, OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.06-0.81) facilitated mapping the TA muscle. Leg motor deficit (p = 0.49, Cramer's V = 0.12, OR = 0.53, 95%CI = 0.12-2.36), tumor entity (p = 0.36, Cramer's V = 0.22), tumor location (p = 0.52, Cramer's V = 0.26) and stimulation intensity (p = 0.158) were no significant factors. The distance between the tumor and the pyramidal tract was higher (p = 0.005) in patients with successful mapping of the TA. The possibility to stimulate the leg motor area was associated with no postoperative aggravation of motor deficits in general (p = 0.005, Cramer's V = 0.45, OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.46-0.85) but could not serve as a specific predictor of postoperative lower extremity function. In conclusion, successful mapping of the TA muscle for neurosurgical planning is influenced by young patient age, absence of edema and greater distance to the CST, whereas tumor entity and stimulation intensity were non-significant.

Influence of different transcranial magnetic stimulation current directions on the corticomotor control of lumbar erector spinae muscles during a static task

Different directions of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can activate different neuronal circuits. Whereas posteroanterior current (PA-TMS) depolarizes mainly interneurons in primary motor cortex (M1), an anteroposterior current (AP-TMS) has been suggested to activate different M1 circuits and perhaps axons from the premotor regions. Although M1 is also involved in the control of axial muscles, no study has explored whether different current directions activate different M1 circuits that may have distinct functional roles. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of different current directions (PA- and AP-TMS) on the corticomotor control and spatial cortical organization of the lumbar erector spinae muscle (LES). Thirty-four healthy participants were recruited for two independent experiments, and LES motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded. In experiment 1 (n = 17), active motor threshold (AMT), MEP latencies, recruitment curve (90% to 160% AMT), and excitatory and inhibitory intracortical mechanisms by paired-pulse TMS (80% followed by 120% AMT stimuli at 2-, 3-, 10-, and 15-ms interstimulus intervals) were tested with a double-cone (n = 12) and a figure-of-eight (n = 5) coil. In experiment 2 (n = 17), LES cortical representations were tested with PA- and AP-TMS. AMT was higher for AP- compared with PA-TMS (P = 0.002). Longer latencies with AP-TMS were present compared with PA-TMS (P = 0.017). AP-TMS produced more inhibition compared with PA-TMS at 2 ms and 3 ms (P = 0.010), but no difference was observed for longer intervals. No difference was found for recruitment curve and mapping. These findings suggest that PA- and AP-TMS may activate different cortical circuits controlling low back muscles, as proposed for hand muscles.NEW & NOTEWORTHY For the first time, anteroposterior and posteroanterior induced electric currents in the brain were compared when targeting back muscle representation with transcranial magnetic stimulation. The use of the anteroposterior current resulted in later response latency, larger inhibition probed by paired-pulse stimulation, and higher motor threshold. These important differences between current directions suggest that each of the current directions may recruit specific cortical circuits involved in the control of back muscles, similar to that for hand muscles.

Using transcranial magnetic stimulation to map the cortical representation of lower-limb muscles

Objective

To evaluate the extent to which transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) can identify discrete cortical representation of lower-limb muscles in healthy individuals.

Methods

Motor evoked potentials were recorded from resting vastus medialis, rectus femoris, vastus lateralis, medial and lateral hamstring, and medial and lateral gastrocnemius muscles on the right leg of 16 young healthy adults using bipolar surface electrodes. TMS was delivered through a 110-mm double-cone coil at 63 sites over the left hemisphere. Location and size of cortical representation and number of discrete peaks were quantified.

Results

Within the quadriceps group there was a main effect of muscle on anterior-posterior centre of gravity (p = 0.010), but the magnitude of the difference was small. There was also a main effect of muscle on medial-lateral hotspot (p = 0.027) and map volume (p = 0.047), but no post-hoc tests were significant. The topography of each lower-limb muscle was complex and variable across individuals.

Conclusions

TMS delivered with a 110-mm double-cone coil could not reliably identify discrete cortical representations of resting lower-limb muscles when responses were measured using bipolar surface electromyography.

Significance

The characteristics of the cortical representation provide a basis against which to evaluate cortical reorganisation in clinical populations.

Deficits in Quadriceps Force Control After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Potential Central Mechanisms

CONTEXT

Poor quadriceps force control has been observed after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction but has not been examined after ACL injury. Whether adaptations within the central nervous system are contributing to these impairments is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To examine quadriceps force control in individuals who had sustained a recent ACL injury and determine the associations between cortical excitability and quadriceps force control in these individuals.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Research laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Eighteen individuals with a recent unilateral ACL injury (6 women, 12 men; age = 29.6 ± 8.4 years, height = 1.74 ± 0.07 m, mass = 76.0 ± 10.4 kg, time postinjury = 69.5 ± 42.5 days) and 18 uninjured individuals (6 women, 12 men; age = 29.2 ± 6.8 years, height = 1.79 ± 0.07 m, mass = 79.0 ± 8.4 kg) serving as controls participated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Quadriceps force control was quantified as the root mean square error between the quadriceps force and target force during a cyclical force-matching task. Cortical excitability was measured as the active motor threshold and cortical silent period. Outcome measures were determined bilaterally in a single testing session. Group and limb differences in quadriceps force control were assessed using mixed analyses of variance (2 × 2). Pearson product moment correlations were performed between quadriceps force control and cortical excitability in individuals with an ACL injury.

RESULTS

Individuals with an ACL injury exhibited greater total force-matching error with their involved (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.8) and uninvolved (SMD = 0.9) limbs than did controls (F_1,27 = 11.347, P = .03). During the period of descending force, individuals with an ACL injury demonstrated greater error using their involved (SMD = 0.8) and uninvolved (SMD = 0.8) limbs than uninjured individuals (F_1,27 = 4.941, P = .04). Greater force-matching error was not associated with any cortical excitability measures (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Quadriceps force control was impaired bilaterally after recent ACL injury but was not associated with selected measures of cortical excitability. The findings highlight a need to incorporate submaximal-force control tasks into rehabilitation and "prehabilitation," as the deficits were present before surgery.

The use of transcranial magnetic stimulation to evaluate cortical excitability of lower limb musculature: Challenges and opportunities

Neuroplasticity is a fundamental yet relatively unexplored process that can impact rehabilitation of lower extremity (LE) movements. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has gained widespread application as a non-invasive brain stimulation technique for evaluating neuroplasticity of the corticospinal pathway. However, a majority of TMS studies have been performed on hand muscles, with a paucity of TMS investigations focused on LE muscles. This perspective review paper proposes that there are unique methodological challenges associated with using TMS to evaluate corticospinal excitability of lower limb muscles. The challenges include: (1) the deeper location of the LE motor homunculus; (2) difficulty with targeting individual LE muscles during TMS; and (3) differences in corticospinal circuity controlling upper and lower limb muscles. We encourage future investigations that modify traditional methodological approaches to help address these challenges. Systematic TMS investigations are needed to determine the extent of overlap in corticomotor maps for different LE muscles. A simple, yet informative methodological solution involves simultaneous recordings from multiple LE muscles, which will provide the added benefit of observing how other relevant muscles co-vary in their responses during targeted TMS assessment directed toward a specific muscle. Furthermore, conventionally used TMS methods (e.g., determination of hot spot location and motor threshold) may need to be modified for TMS studies involving LE muscles. Additional investigations are necessary to determine the influence of testing posture as well as activation state of adjacent and distant LE muscles on TMS-elicited responses. An understanding of these challenges and solutions specific to LE TMS will improve the ability of neurorehabilitation clinicians to interpret TMS literature, and forge novel future directions for neuroscience research focused on elucidating neuroplasticity processes underlying locomotion and gait training.

Cortical motor representation of the rectus femoris does not differ between the left and right hemisphere

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) involves non-invasive magnetic stimulation of the brain, and can be used to explore the corticomotor excitability and motor representations of skeletal muscles. However there is a lack of motor mapping studies in the lower limb and few conducted in healthy cohorts. The cortical motor representations of muscles can vary between individuals in terms of center position and area despite having a general localized region within the motor cortex. It is important to characterize the normal range for these variables in healthy cohorts to be able to evaluate changes in clinical populations. TMS was used in this cross-sectional study to assess the active motor threshold (AMT) and cortical representation area for rectus femoris in 15 healthy individuals (11M/4F 27.3±5.9years). No differences were found between hemispheres (Left vs. Right P=0.130) for AMT. In terms of y-axis center position no differences were found between hemispheres (Left vs. Right P=0.539), or for the x-axis center position (Left vs. Right P=0.076). Similarly, no differences in calculated area of the motor representation were found (Left vs. Right P=0.699) indicating symmetry between hemispheres.