Dual-site TMS as a tool to probe effective interactions within the motor network: a review

Corticospinal excitability reductions during action preparation and action stopping in humans: Different sides of the same inhibitory coin?

Motor functions and cognitive processes are closely associated with each other. In humans, this linkage is reflected in motor system state changes both when an action must be prepared and stopped. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation showed that both action preparation and action stopping are accompanied by a reduction of corticospinal excitability, referred to as preparatory and response inhibition, respectively. While previous efforts have been made to describe both phenomena extensively, an updated and comprehensive comparison of the two phenomena is lacking. To ameliorate such deficit, this review focuses on the role and interpretation of single-coil (single-pulse and paired-pulse) and dual-coil TMS outcome measures during action preparation and action stopping in humans. To that effect, it aims to identify commonalities and differences, detailing how TMS-based outcome measures are affected by states, traits, and psychopathologies in both processes. Eventually, findings will be compared, and open questions will be addressed to aid future research.

Probing intrahemispheric interactions with a novel dual-site TMS setup

OBJECTIVE

Using dual-site transcranial magnetic stimulation (dsTMS), the effective connectivity between the primary motor cortex (M1) and adjacent brain areas such as the dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) can be investigated. However, stimulating two brain regions in close proximity (e.g., ±2.3 cm for intrahemispheric PMd-M1) is subject to considerable spatial restrictions that potentially can be overcome by combining two standard figure-of-eight coils in a novel dsTMS setup.

METHODS

After a technical evaluation of its induced electric fields, the dsTMS setup was tested in vivo (n = 23) by applying a short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) protocol. Additionally, the intrahemispheric PMd-M1 interaction was probed. E-field modelling was performed using SimNIBS.

RESULTS

The technical evaluation yielded no major alterations of the induced electric fields due to coil overlap. In vivo, the setup reliably elicited SICI. Investigating intrahemispheric PMd-M1 interactions was feasible (inter-stimulus interval 6 ms), resulting in modulation of M1 output.

CONCLUSIONS

The presented dsTMS setup provides a novel way to stimulate two adjacent brain regions with fewer technical and spatial limitations than previous attempts.

SIGNIFICANCE

This dsTMS setup enables more accurate and repeatable targeting of brain regions in close proximity and can facilitate innovation in the field of effective connectivity.

The behavioral and neural effects of parietal theta burst stimulation on the grasp network are stronger during a grasping task than at rest

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used in neuroscience and clinical settings to modulate human cortical activity. The effects of TMS on neural activity depend on the excitability of specific neural populations at the time of stimulation. Accordingly, the brain state at the time of stimulation may influence the persistent effects of repetitive TMS on distal brain activity and associated behaviors. We applied intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) to a region in the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) associated with grasp control to evaluate the interaction between stimulation and brain state. Across two experiments, we demonstrate the immediate responses of motor cortex activity and motor performance to state-dependent parietal stimulation. We randomly assigned 72 healthy adult participants to one of three TMS intervention groups, followed by electrophysiological measures with TMS and behavioral measures. Participants in the first group received iTBS to PPC while performing a grasping task concurrently. Participants in the second group received iTBS to PPC while in a task-free, resting state. A third group of participants received iTBS to a parietal region outside the cortical grasping network while performing a grasping task concurrently. We compared changes in motor cortical excitability and motor performance in the three stimulation groups within an hour of each intervention. We found that parietal stimulation during a behavioral manipulation that activates the cortical grasping network increased downstream motor cortical excitability and improved motor performance relative to stimulation during rest. We conclude that constraining the brain state with a behavioral task during brain stimulation has the potential to optimize plasticity induction in cortical circuit mechanisms that mediate movement processes.

Contribution of neural circuits tested by transcranial magnetic stimulation in corticomotor control of low back muscle: a systematic review

Introduction

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is widely used to investigate central nervous system mechanisms underlying motor control. Despite thousands of TMS studies on neurophysiological underpinnings of corticomotor control, a large majority of studies have focused on distal muscles, and little is known about axial muscles (e.g., low back muscles). Yet, differences between corticomotor control of low back and distal muscles (e.g., gross vs. fine motor control) suggest differences in the neural circuits involved. This systematic review of the literature aims at detailing the organisation and neural circuitry underlying corticomotor control of low back muscles tested with TMS in healthy humans.

Methods

The literature search was performed in four databases (CINAHL, Embase, Medline (Ovid) and Web of science) up to May 2022. Included studies had to use TMS in combination with EMG recording of paraspinal muscles (between T12 and L5) in healthy participants. Weighted average was used to synthesise quantitative study results.

Results

Forty-four articles met the selection criteria. TMS studies of low back muscles provided consistent evidence of contralateral and ipsilateral motor evoked potentials (with longer ipsilateral latencies) as well as of short intracortical inhibition/facilitation. However, few or no studies using other paired pulse protocols were found (e.g., long intracortical inhibition, interhemispheric inhibition). In addition, no study explored the interaction between different cortical areas using dual TMS coil protocol (e.g., between primary motor cortex and supplementary motor area).

Discussion

Corticomotor control of low back muscles are distinct from hand muscles. Our main findings suggest: (i) bilateral projections from each single primary motor cortex, for which contralateral and ipsilateral tracts are probably of different nature (contra: monosynaptic; ipsi: oligo/polysynaptic) and (ii) the presence of intracortical inhibitory and excitatory circuits in M1 influencing the excitability of the contralateral corticospinal cells projecting to low back muscles. Understanding of these mechanisms are important for improving the understanding of neuromuscular function of low back muscles and to improve the management of clinical populations (e.g., low back pain, stroke).