Two forms of short-interval intracortical inhibition in human motor cortex.
Two forms of short-interval intracortical inhibition in human motor cortex.
复制标题
人类运动皮质的两种短间隔皮质内抑制形式。
DOI：
10.1016/j.brs.2021.08.022
复制
发表时间：
2021-09
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Rothwell JC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fong PY;Spampinato D;Rocchi L;Hannah R;Teng Y;Di Santo A;Shoura M;Bhatia K;Rothwell JC
经颅磁刺激（TMS）的脉冲与主要的前-后（AP）或后-前（PA）的电流方向在初级运动皮层似乎激活不同的兴奋性输入皮质脊髓神经元。相反，很少有报道研究是否负责短间隔皮层内抑制（SICI）的抑制性神经元对TMS电流方向敏感。研究AP和PA条件刺激（CSPA和CSAP）评估的SICI是否激活不同的抑制通路。SICI总是使用PA导向的测试刺激（TSPA）进行评估。使用两个叠加的TMS线圈，CSPA和CSAP在TSPA之前以1-5 ms的刺激间间隔（ISI）和不同强度的范围施加。使用三重刺激设计，我们然后测试是否SICI在ISI为3毫秒，使用相反方向的CS（SICICSPA 3和SICICSAP 3）与其他三种形式的抑制，包括SICI在ISI为2毫秒（SICICSPA 2），小脑运动皮层抑制（CBI 5毫秒）和短潜伏期传入抑制（SAI 22毫秒）的相互作用不同。最后，我们比较了强直性和阶段性自主收缩对SICICSPA 3和SICICSAP 3的影响。CSAP在ISI = 1和2 ms时几乎不产生SICI。然而，在ISI = 3 ms时，CSAP和CSPA在最大刺激器输出的相同百分比下同样有效。尽管有这种明显的相似性，但将SICICSPA 3或SICICSAP 3与其他形式的抑制相结合导致了完全不同的结果：SICICSPA 3以复杂的方式与CBI、SAI和SICICSPA 2相互作用，而SICICSAP 3的作用似乎与它们完全无关。虽然SICICSPA和SICICSAP都减少了相同的数额在自愿紧张性收缩与休息相比，在一个简单的反应时间任务SICICSAP被解除抑制更早的命令信号比SICICSPA。SICICSPA似乎激活了与SICICSAP激活的抑制途径不同的抑制途径。这种差异与行为有关，因为在意志收缩期间，这些途径受到不同的控制。这些结果可以解释一些以前的病理数据，并打开测试这些通路是否在一系列任务中差异招募的可能性。用于抑制传统测试刺激诱发的MEP的条件刺激（CS）的相反方向。不同方向的CS具有不同的短间隔皮层内抑制（SICI）时程。它们还与短潜伏期传入抑制和小脑抑制有不同的相互作用。他们在反应时间任务中受到不同的影响。我们认为在运动皮层中存在两种形式的SICI。
Pulses of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) with a predominantly anterior-posterior (AP) or posterior-anterior (PA) current direction over the primary motor cortex appear to activate distinct excitatory inputs to corticospinal neurons. In contrast, very few reports have examined whether the inhibitory neurons responsible for short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI) are sensitive to TMS current direction. To investigate whether SICI evaluated with AP and PA conditioning stimuli (CSPA and CSAP) activate different inhibitory pathways. SICI was always assessed using a PA-oriented test stimulus (TSPA). Using two superimposed TMS coils, CSPA and CSAP were applied at interstimulus intervals (ISI) of 1–5 ms before a TSPA, and at a range of different intensities. Using a triple stimulation design, we then tested whether SICI at ISI of 3 ms using opposite directions of CS (SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3) interacted differently with three other forms of inhibition, including SICI at ISI of 2 ms (SICICSPA2), cerebellum-motor cortex inhibition (CBI 5 ms) and short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI 22 ms). Finally, we compared the effect of tonic and phasic voluntary contraction on SICICSPA3 and SICICSAP3. CSAP produced little SICI at ISIs = 1 and 2 ms. However, at ISI = 3 ms, both CSAP and CSPA were equally effective at the same percent of maximum stimulator output. Despite this apparent similarity, combining SICICSPA3 or SICICSAP3 with other forms of inhibition led to quite different results: SICICSPA3 interacted in complex ways with CBI, SAI and SICICSPA2, whereas the effect of SICICSAP3 appeared to be quite independent of them. Although SICICSPA and SICICSAP were both reduced by the same amount during voluntary tonic contraction compared with rest, in a simple reaction time task SICICSAP was disinhibited much earlier following the imperative signal than SICICSPA. SICICSPA appears to activate a different inhibitory pathway to that activated by SICICSAP. The difference is behaviourally relevant since the pathways are controlled differently during volitional contraction. The results may explain some previous pathological data and open the possibility of testing whether these pathways are differentially recruited in a range of tasks. Opposite directions of conditioning stimulus (CS) used to suppress MEPs evoked by a conventional test stimulus. Different directions of CS have different time courses of short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI). They also interact differently with short-latency afferent inhibition and with cerebellar inhibition. They are differently affected in a reaction time task. We suggest there are two forms of SICI in motor cortex.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.clinph.2009.08.016
发表时间：
2009-12
期刊：
Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology
影响因子：
--
作者：
Rossi S;Hallett M;Rossini PM;Pascual-Leone A;Safety of TMS Consensus Group
通讯作者：
Safety of TMS Consensus Group
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Hanajima, R.;Okabe, S.;Ugawa, Y.
通讯作者：
Ugawa, Y.
影响因子：
2
作者：
Roshan, L;Paradiso, GO;Chen, R
通讯作者：
Chen, R
影响因子：
4.7
作者：
Bestmann, S;Siebner, HR;Rothwell, JC
通讯作者：
Rothwell, JC
DOI：
10.1016/j.clinph.2012.01.010
发表时间：
2012-05
期刊：
Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology
影响因子：
--
作者：
Groppa S;Oliviero A;Eisen A;Quartarone A;Cohen LG;Mall V;Kaelin-Lang A;Mima T;Rossi S;Thickbroom GW;Rossini PM;Ziemann U;Valls-Solé J;Siebner HR
通讯作者：
Siebner HR