Variability in Response to Quadripulse Stimulation of the Motor Cortex
Variability in Response to Quadripulse Stimulation of the Motor Cortex
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.brs.2016.01.008
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-01
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Ugawa, Yoshikazu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nakamura, Koichiro;Groiss, Stefan Jun;Ugawa, Yoshikazu
背景：对可塑性诱导脑刺激方案的反应是高度可变的。然而，没有关于四脉冲刺激（QPS）反应变异性的数据。目的：系统评估运动皮质可塑性诱导的QPS参数，并利用最优参数研究QPS的变异性。方法：首先比较两种脉冲数相同的不同间歇期（IBI）。接下来，我们研究了三种不同的ibi，它们的脉搏总数不同，但干预时间相同。我们还比较了单相和双相QPS的后效。最后，在35名健康受试者中测试QPS的变异性。在干预后的一小时内，每5-10分钟测量20个运动诱发电位（MEPs）。结果：QPS在IBI 5 s时产生的MEPs变化依赖于四个磁脉冲的间隔时间，与先前的报道一致。出乎意料的是，在IBI为2.5 s时，即使脉冲总数相同（1440），QPS也没有引起任何塑性。IBI为7.5 s时的QPS产生了可变的反应，但可能与传统的QPS相当。与单相QPS相比，双相QPS的持续效应较短。最后，QPS的后效在受试者之间是相对一致的：超过80%的受试者在IBI为5秒时的兴奋性QPS反应与预期一致。结论：IBI、手术总时间和脉冲波形对QPS诱导的可塑性的大小或持续时间有重要影响。在这个队列中，80%的受试者对兴奋性QPS有预期的反应。(C) 2016作者。Elsevier Inc .出版
Background: Responses to plasticity-inducing brain stimulation protocols are highly variable. However, no data are available concerning the variability of responses to quadripulse stimulation (QPS).Objective: We assessed the QPS parameters of motor cortical plasticity induction in a systematic manner, and later investigated the variability of QPS using optimal parameters.Methods: First, two different interburst intervals (IBI) with the same total number of pulses were compared. Next we investigated three different IBIs with a different total number of pulses but with same duration of intervention. We also compared the after-effects of monophasic and biphasic QPS. Finally, variability of QPS was tested in 35 healthy subjects. Twenty motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were measured every 5-10 min for up to one hour after intervention.Results: QPS at an IBI of 5 s produced MEPs changes that are dependent on the interstimulus interval of the four magnetic pulses, consistent with previous reports. Unexpectedly, QPS at an IBI of 2.5 s did not induce any plasticity, even with the same total number of pulses, that is, 1440. QPS at an IBI of 7.5 s produced a variable response but was likely to be comparable to conventional QPS. Biphasic QPS had shorter lasting after-effects compared with monophasic QPS. Finally, the after-effects of QPS were relatively consistent across subjects: more than 80% of subjects responded as expected in the excitatory QPS at an IBI of 5 s.Conclusions: The IBI, total duration of the procedure and pulse waveform strongly affected the magnitude or duration of the plasticity induced by QPS. In this cohort, 80% of subjects responded to excitatory QPS as expected. (C) 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc