Contemporary non-invasive neuromodulatory techniques, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), have shown promising potential in both restituting impairments in cortical physiology in clinical settings, as well as modulating cognitive abilities in the healthy population. However, neuroplastic after-effects of tDCS are highly dependent on stimulation parameters, relatively short lasting, and not expectedly uniform between individuals. The present study systematically investigates the full range of current intensity between 0.5 and 2.0 mA on left primary motor cortex (M1) plasticity, as well as the impact of individual-level covariates on explaining inter-individual variability. Thirty-eight healthy subjects were divided into groups of anodal and cathodal tDCS. Five DC intensities (sham, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 mA) were investigated in separate sessions. Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), 25 motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) were recorded before, and 10 time points up to 2 h following 15 min of tDCS. Repeated-measures ANOVAs indicated a main effect of intensity for both anodal and cathodal tDCS. With anodal tDCS, all active intensities resulted in equivalent facilitatory effects relative to sham while for cathodal tDCS, only 1.0 mA resulted in sustained excitability diminution. An additional experiment conducted to assess intra-individual variability revealed generally good reliability of 1.0 mA anodal tDCS (ICC(2,1) = 0.74 over the first 30 min). A post hoc analysis to discern sources of inter-individual variability confirmed a previous finding in which individual TMS SI (stimulus intensity for 1 mV MEP amplitude) sensitivity correlated negatively with 1.0 mA anodal tDCS effects on excitability. Our study thus provides further insights on the extent of non-linear intensity-dependent neuroplastic after-effects of anodal and cathodal tDCS.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) studies in humans have shown that many behaviors engage processes that suppress excitability within the corticospinal tract. Inhibition of the motor output pathway has been extensively studied in the context of action stopping, where a planned movement needs to be abruptly aborted. Recent TMS work has also revealed markers of motor inhibition during the preparation of movement. Here, we review the evidence for motor inhibition during action stopping and action preparation, focusing on studies that have used TMS to monitor changes in the excitability of the corticospinal pathway. We discuss how these physiological results have motivated theoretical models of how the brain selects actions, regulates movement initiation and execution, and switches from one state to another.

Top-down control processes are critical to select goal-directed actions in flexible environments. In humans, these processes include two inhibitory mechanisms that operate during response selection: one is involved in solving a competition between different response options, the other ensures that a selected response is initiated timely. Here, we evaluated the role of dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) and lateral prefrontal cortex (LPF) of healthy subjects in these two forms of inhibition by using an innovative transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) protocol combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) over PMd or LPF and a single pulse TMS (sTMS) over primary motor cortex (M1). sTMS over M1 allowed us to assess inhibitory changes in corticospinal excitability, while rTMS was used to produce transient disruption of PMd or LPF. We found that rTMS over LPF reduces inhibition associated with competition resolution whereas rTMS over PMd decreases inhibition associated with response impulse control. These results emphasize the dissociable contributions of these two frontal regions to inhibitory control during motor preparation. The association of LPF with competition resolution is consistent with the role of this area in relatively abstract aspects of control related to goal maintenance, ensuring that the appropriate response is selected in a variable context. In contrast, the association of PMd with impulse control is consistent with the role of this area in more specific processes related to motor preparation and initiation.

Motor system excitability is transiently inhibited during the preparation of responses. Previous studies have attributed this inhibition to the operation of two mechanisms, one hypothesized to help resolve competition between alternative response options, and the other to prevent premature response initiation. By this view, inhibition should be restricted to task-relevant muscles. Although this prediction is supported in one previous study (Duque et al., 2010), studies of stopping ongoing actions suggest that some forms of motor inhibition may be widespread (Badry et al., 2009). This motivated us to conduct a series of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) experiments to examine in detail the specificity of preparatory inhibition in humans. Motor-evoked potentials were inhibited in task-irrelevant muscles during response preparation, even when the muscles were contralateral and not homologous to the responding effector. Inhibition was also observed in both choice and simple response task conditions, with and without a preparatory interval. Control experiments ruled out that this inhibition is due to expectancy of TMS or a possible need to cancel the prepared response. These findings suggest that motor inhibition during response preparation broadly influences the motor system and likely reflects a process that occurs whenever a response is selected. We propose a reinterpretation of the functional significance of preparatory inhibition, one by which inhibition reduces noise to enhance signal processing and modulates the gain of a selected response.

In this study, we examined the dynamics of inhibitory preparatory processes, using a delayed response task in which a cue signaled a left or right index finger (Experiment 1) or hand (Experiment 2) movement in advance of an imperative signal. In Experiment 1, we varied the duration of the delay period (200, 500, and 900 ms). When transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was applied 100 ms before the imperative, motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited in the first dorsal interosseous were strongly inhibited. For delays of 500 ms or longer, this inhibition was greater when the targeted muscle was selected compared with when it was not selected. In contrast, the magnitude of inhibition just after the cue was inversely related to the duration of the delay period, and the difference between the selected and nonselected conditions was attenuated. In Experiment 2, TMS and peripheral nerve stimulation procedures were used during a 300-ms delay period. MEPs in the flexor carpi radialis for both selected and nonselected conditions were inhibited, but without any change in the H-reflex. Taken together, these results reveal the dual influence of temporal constraints associated with anticipation and urgency on inhibitory processes recruited during response preparation.

Background Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has become an important non-invasive brain stimulation tool for basic human brain physiology, and cognitive neuroscience, with potential applications in cognitive and motor rehabilitation. To date, tDCS studies have employed a fixed stimulation level, without considering the impact of individual anatomy and physiology on the efficacy of the stimulation. This approach contrasts with the standard procedure for transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) where stimulation levels are usually tailored on an individual basis. Objective/Hypothesis The present study tests whether the efficacy of tDCS-induced changes in corticospinal excitability varies as a function of individual differences in sensitivity to TMS. Methods We performed an archival review to examine the relationship between the TMS intensity required to induce 1 mV motor-evoked potentials (MEP) and the efficacy of (fixed-intensity) tDCS over the primary motor cortex (M1). For the latter, we examined tDCS-induced changes in corticospinal excitability, operationalized by comparing MEPs before and after anodal or cathodal tDCS. For comparison, we performed a similar analysis on data sets in which MEPs had been obtained before and after paired associative stimulation (PAS), a non-invasive brain stimulation technique in which the stimulation intensity is adjusted on an individual basis. Results MEPs were enhanced following anodal tDCS. This effect was larger in participants more sensitive to TMS as compared to those less sensitive to TMS, with sensitivity defined as the TMS intensity required to produce MEP amplitudes of the size of 1 mV. While MEPs were attenuated following cathodal tDCS, the magnitude of this attenuation was not related to TMS sensitivity nor was there a relationship between TMS sensitivity and responsiveness to PAS. Conclusion Accounting for variation in individual sensitivity to non-invasive baseline stimulation may enhance the utility of tDCS as a tool for understanding brain-behavior interactions and a method for clinical interventions.

Neuroimaging and neuropsychological studies suggest that in right-handed individuals, the left hemisphere plays a dominant role in praxis, relative to the right hemisphere. However hemispheric asymmetries assessed with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has not shown consistent differences in corticospinal (CS) excitability of the two hemispheres during movements. In the current study, we systematically explored hemispheric asymmetries in inhibitory processes that are manifest during movement preparation and initiation. Single-pulse TMS was applied over the left or right primary motor cortex (M1LEFT and M1RIGHT, respectively) to elicit motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) in the contralateral hand while participants performed a two-choice reaction time task requiring a cued movement of the left or right index finger. In Experiments 1 and 2, TMS probes were obtained during a delay period following the presentation of the preparatory cue that provided partial or full information about the required response. MEPs were suppressed relative to baseline regardless of whether they were elicited in a cued or uncued hand. Importantly, the magnitude of these inhibitory changes in CS excitability was similar when TMS was applied over M1LEFT or M1RIGHT, irrespective of the amount of information carried by the preparatory cue. In Experiment 3, there was no preparatory cue and TMS was applied at various time points after the imperative signal. When CS excitability was probed in the cued effector, MEPs were initially inhibited and then rose across the reaction time interval. This function was similar for M1LEFT and M1RIGHT TMS. When CS excitability was probed in the uncued effector, MEPs remained inhibited throughout the RT interval. However, MEPs in right FDI became more inhibited during selection and initiation of a left hand movement, whereas MEPs in left FDI remained relatively invariant across RT interval for the right hand. In addition to these task-specific effects, there was a global difference in CS excitability across experiments between the two hemispheres. When the intensity of stimulation was set to 115% of the resting threshold, MEPs were larger when the TMS probe was applied over the M1LEFT than over M1RIGHT. In summary, while the latter result suggests that M1LEFT is more excitable than M1RIGHT, the recruitment of preparatory inhibitory mechanisms is similar within the two cerebral hemispheres.

Does language comprehension depend, in part, on neural systems for action? In previous studies, motor areas of the brain were activated when people read or listened to action verbs, but it remains unclear whether such activation is functionally relevant for comprehension. In the experiments reported here, we used off-line theta-burst transcranial magnetic stimulation to investigate whether a causal relationship exists between activity in premotor cortex and action-language understanding. Right-handed participants completed a lexical decision task, in which they read verbs describing manual actions typically performed with the dominant hand (e.g., "to throw," "to write") and verbs describing nonmanual actions (e.g., "to earn," "to wander"). Responses to manual-action verbs (but not to nonmanual-action verbs) were faster after stimulation of the hand area in left premotor cortex than after stimulation of the hand area in right premotor cortex. These results suggest that premotor cortex has a functional role in action-language understanding.