A novel protocol to investigate motor training-induced plasticity and sensorimotor integration in the cerebellum and motor cortex
A novel protocol to investigate motor training-induced plasticity and sensorimotor integration in the cerebellum and motor cortex
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/jn.00661.2013
复制
发表时间：
2014-02-01
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Murphy, Bernadette
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baarbe, Julianne;Yielder, Paul;Murphy, Bernadette
我们的小组着手开发一种灵敏的技术，能够检测运动采集任务后后颅窝的输出变化。在对左大脑运动皮层 (M1) 进行测试刺激之前 5 毫秒，对右小脑皮层施加经颅磁刺激 (TMS)，抑制远端手部肌肉中记录的测试运动诱发电位 (MEP)。 10 名参与者以随机 8 个字母序列的形式输入字母 Z、D、F 和 P，持续约 15 分钟，另外 10 名参与者参与了对照条件。在运动习得任务之前和之后建立了小脑-M1 募集曲线。 50% 小脑抑制 (CBI50) 定义为产生 MEP 为初始测试 MEP 50% 的小脑 M1 刺激强度。收集也发生在高于 CBI50 5% 和 10% 的刺激强度下。观察到组（实验组和对照组）与时间（干预前和干预后）的显着交互作用[F(1,18) = 4.617，P = 0.046]。事后测试显示实验组的学习任务有显着效果[F(1,9) = 10.28, P = 0.01]。进一步分析显示，仅实验组在 CBI50 (P = 0.04)、CBI50 + 5% (P = 0.008) 和 CBI50 + 10% (P = 0.01) 时出现特异性去抑制。练习后反应时间（P < 0.001）和准确性（P = 0.006）显着提高，这意味着去抑制与运动学习同时发生。然而，在对照条件下没有看到任何变化。我们的结论是，该协议是一种敏感技术，可用于研究体内运动获取的小脑去抑制。
Our group set out to develop a sensitive technique, capable of detecting output changes from the posterior fossa following a motor acquisition task. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied over the right cerebellar cortex 5 ms in advance of test stimuli over the left cerebral motor cortex (M1), suppressing test motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) recorded in a distal hand muscle. Ten participants typed the letters Z, D, F, and P in randomized 8-letter sequences for similar to 15 min, and 10 participants took part in the control condition. Cerebellar-M1 recruitment curves were established before and after the motor acquisition task. Cerebellar inhibition at 50% (CBI50) was defined as the intensity of cerebellar-M1 stimulations that produced MEPs that were 50% of the initial test MEP. Collection also occurred at stimulator intensities 5 and 10% above CBI50. A significant interaction effect of group (experimental and control) vs. time (pre- and postintervention) was observed [F(1,18) = 4.617, P = 0.046]. Post hoc tests showed a significant effect for the learning task in the experimental group [F(1,9) = 10.28, P = 0.01]. Further analysis showed specific disinhibition at CBI50 (P = 0.04), CBI50 + 5% (P = 0.008), and CBI50 + 10% (P = 0.01) for the experimental group only. Reaction time (P < 0.001) and accuracy (P = 0.006) improved significantly following practice, implying that disinhibition coincides with motor learning. No changes, however, were seen in the control condition. We conclude that this protocol is a sensitive technique that may be used to study cerebellar disinhibition with motor acquisition in vivo.