Threshold Tracked Short-Interval Intracortical Inhibition More Closely Predicts the Cortical Response to Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Investigating the Effects of Repetitive Paired-Pulse Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Visuomotor Training Using TMS-EEG

I-wave periodicity repetitive paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (iTMS) can modify acquisition of a novel motor skill, but the associated neurophysiological effects remain unclear. The current study therefore used combined TMS-electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) to investigate the neurophysiological effects of iTMS on subsequent visuomotor training (VT). Sixteen young adults (26.1 ± 5.1 years) participated in three sessions including real iTMS and VT (iTMS + VT), control iTMS and VT (iTMSControl + VT), or iTMS alone. Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) and TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs) were measured before and after iTMS, and again after VT, to assess neuroplastic changes. Irrespective of the intervention, MEP amplitude was not changed after iTMS or VT. Motor skill was improved compared with baseline, but no differences were found between stimulus conditions. In contrast, the P30 peak was altered by VT when preceded by control iTMS (P < 0.05), but this effect was not apparent when VT was preceded by iTMS or following iTMS alone (all P > 0.15). In contrast to expectations, iTMS was unable to modulate MEP amplitude or influence motor learning. Despite this, changes in P30 amplitude suggested that motor learning was associated with altered cortical reactivity. Furthermore, this effect was abolished by priming with iTMS, suggesting an influence of priming that failed to impact learning.

Classical, spaced, or accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation of motor cortex for treating neuropathic pain: A 3-arm parallel non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1) at high frequency (HF) is an effective treatment of neuropathic pain. The classical HF-rTMS protocol (CHF-rTMS) includes a daily session for one week as an induction phase of treatment followed by more spaced sessions. Another type of protocol without an induction phase and based solely on spaced sessions of HF-rTMS (SHF-rTMS) has also been shown to produce neuropathic pain relief. However, CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS of M1 have never been compared regarding their analgesic potential. Another type of rTMS paradigm, called accelerated intermittent theta burst stimulation (ACC-iTBS), has recently been proposed for the treatment of depression, the other clinical condition for which HF-rTMS is proposed as an effective therapeutic strategy. ACC-iTBS combines a high number of pulses delivered in short sessions grouped into a few days of stimulation. This type of protocol has never been applied to M1 for the treatment of pain.

METHODS/DESIGN

The objective of this single-centre randomized study is to compare the efficacy of three different rTMS protocols for the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain: CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS, and ACC-iTBS. The CHF-rTMS will consists of 10 stimulation sessions, including 5 daily sessions of 10Hz-rTMS (3,000 pulses per session) over one week, then one session per week for 5 weeks, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 10 stimulation days. The SHF-rTMS protocol will only include 4 sessions of 20Hz-rTMS (1,600 pulses per session), one every 15 days, for a total of 6,400 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. The ACC-iTBS protocol will comprise 5 sessions of iTBS (600 pulses per session) completed in half a day for 2 consecutive days, repeated 5 weeks later, for a total of 30,000 pulses delivered in 4 stimulation days. Thus, CHF-rTMS and ACC-iTBS protocols will share a higher total number of TMS pulses (30,000 pulses) compared to SHF-rTMS protocol (6,400 pulses), while CHF-rTMS protocol will include a higher number of stimulation days (10 days) compared to ACC-iTBS and SHF-rTMS protocols (4 days). In all protocols, the M1 target will be defined in the same way and stimulated at the same intensity using a navigated rTMS (nTMS) procedure. The evaluation will be based on clinical outcomes with various scales and questionnaires assessed every week, from two weeks before the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation until 4 weeks after. Additionally, three sets of neurophysiological outcomes (resting-state electroencephalography (EEG), nTMS-EEG recordings, and short intracortical inhibition measurement with threshold tracking method) will be assessed the week before and after the 7-week period of therapeutic stimulation.

DISCUSSION

This study will make it possible to compare the analgesic efficacy of the CHF-rTMS and SHF-rTMS protocols and to appraise that of the ACC-iTBS protocol for the first time. This study will also make it possible to determine the respective influence of the total number of pulses and days of stimulation delivered to M1 on the extent of pain relief. Thus, if their analgesic efficacy is not inferior to that of CHF-rTMS, SHF-rTMS and especially the new ACC-iTBS protocol could be an optimal compromise of a more easy-to-perform rTMS protocol for the treatment of patients with chronic neuropathic pain.

Methodological Choices Matter: A Systematic Comparison of TMS-EEG Studies Targeting the Primary Motor Cortex

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) triggers time-locked cortical activity that can be recorded with electroencephalography (EEG). Transcranial evoked potentials (TEPs) are widely used to probe brain responses to TMS. Here, we systematically reviewed 137 published experiments that studied TEPs elicited from TMS to the human primary motor cortex (M1) in healthy individuals to investigate the impact of methodological choices. We scrutinized prevalent methodological choices and assessed how consistently they were reported in published papers. We extracted amplitudes and latencies from reported TEPs and compared specific TEP peaks and components between studies using distinct methods. Reporting of methodological details was overall sufficient, but some relevant information regarding the TMS settings and the recording and preprocessing of EEG data were missing in more than 25% of the included experiments. The published TEP latencies and amplitudes confirm the "prototypical" TEP waveform following stimulation of M1, comprising distinct N15, P30, N45, P60, N100, and P180 peaks. However, variations in amplitude were evident across studies. Higher stimulation intensities were associated with overall larger TEP amplitudes. Active noise masking during TMS generally resulted in lower TEP amplitudes compared to no or passive masking but did not specifically impact those TEP peaks linked to long-latency sensory processing. Studies implementing independent component analysis (ICA) for artifact removal generally reported lower TEP magnitudes. In summary, some aspects of reporting practices could be improved in future TEP studies to enable replication. Methodological choices, including TMS intensity and the use of noise masking or ICA, introduce systematic differences in reported TEP amplitudes. Further investigation into the significance of these and other methodological factors and their interactions is warranted.

Advancements in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Research and the Path to Precision

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has become increasingly popular in clinical practice in recent years, and there have been significant advances in the principles and stimulation modes of TMS. With the development of multi-mode and precise stimulation technology, it is crucial to have a comprehensive understanding of TMS. The neuroregulatory effects of TMS can vary depending on the specific mode of stimulation, highlighting the importance of exploring these effects through multimodal application. Additionally, the use of precise TMS therapy can help enhance our understanding of the neural mechanisms underlying these effects, providing us with a more comprehensive perspective. This article aims to review the mechanism of action, stimulation mode, multimodal application, and precision of TMS.