Aging influences central motor conduction less than peripheral motor conduction: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Matsumoto, Hideyuki; Konoma, Yuko; Shimizu, Takahiro; Okabe, Shingo; Shirota, Yasuhiko; Hanajima, Ritsuko; Terao, Yasuo; Ugawa, Yoshikazu

doi:10.1002/mus.23430

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This makes it possible to estimate the latency from cortex to conus (corticoconus conduction time) and the peripheral component of CMCT‐M (cauda equina conduction time). However, MATS‐based root latencies are relatively low, and corresponding CMCT‐M readings are relatively high when compared with results obtained using conventional coils (see Table S1 in Supplementary Material, available online) . Furthermore, root latencies are 0.9 ms shorter than for electrical root stimulation, equivalent to a distance of about 4.5 cm if a nerve conduction velocity of 50 m/s is assumed .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

A multiple regression model of normal central and peripheral motor conduction times

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe effects of age, height, and gender on magnetic central and peripheral motor conduction times (CMCT, PMCT) were analyzed using a multiple regression model.MethodsMotor evoked potentials were recorded in 91 healthy volunteers. Magnetic stimulation was performed over the primary motor cortex (cortical latency) and over the cervical and lumbar spines (spinal latency). The spinal latency was taken as an estimate of PMCT and was subtracted from cortical latency to yield CMCT.ResultsLower limb CMCT correlated significantly with height only; there were no significant predictors for upper limb CMCT. Upper and lower limb PMCT correlated with both age and height.ConclusionsThis is among the largest studies of CMCT in normal subjects. The multiple regression model unifies previously reported simple regression analyses, reconciles past discrepancies, and allows normal ranges to be individualized. Muscle Nerve 51:706–712, 2015

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

A multiple regression model of normal central and peripheral motor conduction times

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two main methods are used to calculate CMCT; one uses magnetic root stimulation [4][5][6][7] whereas the other uses F-waves. [2][3][4]8,9 The CMCT calculated by subtracting the F-wave latencies from the latencies measured to ADM after transcranial stimulation are slightly shorter than that obtained after magnetic root stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Matsumoto et al reported that corticoconus motor conduction time (CCCT) was less affected by aging than by PMCT. 6 The reason for this can be explained by anatomy; the brain and spinal cord are protected by the cranial bones and the vertebral column, respectively, but peripheral nerves are directly and easily affected by minor trauma. 6 CCCT was the conduction time from the motor cortex to the cauda equina at the L1 spinous process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 The reason for this can be explained by anatomy; the brain and spinal cord are protected by the cranial bones and the vertebral column, respectively, but peripheral nerves are directly and easily affected by minor trauma. 6 CCCT was the conduction time from the motor cortex to the cauda equina at the L1 spinous process. CCMC includes the synaptic delay between the corticospinal tract and the spinal motor neurons, and there may not be a significant difference in the correlation between this synaptic delay and age.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of differences in age and body height on normal values of central motor conduction time determined by F-waves

Imajo

Kanchiku

Suzuki

et al. 2015

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To investigate the effect on central motor conduction time (CMCT) based on the relationship between age and height in normal subjects. Design: Retrospective study. Methods: One hundred and ninety nine normal subjects (107 men and 92 women; mean age 39.0 ± 16.4 years; mean height 164.5 ± 8.8 cm) participated in the study. The approximate ages of subjects were as follows: 82 (20-29 years old), 32 (30-39 years old), 32 (40-49 years old), 28 (50-59 years old), and 25 (≧60 years old). The heights of 9, 49, 79, 53, and 9 subjects were <150 cm, 150-160 cm, 160-170 cm, 170-180 cm, and >180 cm, respectively. CMCT-abductor digiti minimi (ADM) and abductor hallucis (AH) were calculated by subtracting the peripheral motor conduction time (PMCT) from the onset latency of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) evoked by transcranial magnetic stimulation. PMCT was calculated from the latencies of the compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) and F-waves as follows: (latency of CMAPs + latency of F-waves -1)/2. Outcome measures: CMCT-ADM and CMCT-AH. Results:The normative values were 5.2 ± 0.8 ms and 11.8 ± 1.3 ms for CMCT-ADM and CMCT-AH, respectively. CMCT-ADM was not significantly correlated with age (P = 0.196) and body height (P = 0.158). CMCT-AH had significantly positive, linear correlations with age and body height (CMCT-AH = 0.014 × age + 10.971, P = 0.011, R = 0.179 and CMCT-AH = 0.026 × body height + 7.158, P = 0.010, R = 0.182). Conclusions: We suggest normative values of 3.2-7.2 ms in CMCT-ADM for subjects exerting slight effort on ADM regardless age and body height. CMCT-AH had significantly positive, linear correlations with age and body height.

show abstract

“…CMCT also shows a weaker correlation with aging than PMCT. 27 In some previous reports, the prolongation of CMCT and MEPs latency showed only small differences between the upper and lower limbs. [3][4] On the contrary, Lyu et al 12 reported that CMCT and MEPs latency in the upper limbs were longer than those in the lower limbs.…”

Section: C3-c4 (N = 25) Adm-cmct Ah-cmct Adm-meps Ah-mepsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy

Funaba

Kanchiku

Imajo

et al. 2015

Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Aging influences central motor conduction less than peripheral motor conduction: A transcranial magnetic stimulation study

Abstract: CCCT is the most direct indicator of corticospinal tract conduction, whereas L1-level latency reflects whole peripheral motor conduction. Central motor conduction was found to be relatively less affected by aging compared with peripheral motor conduction.

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

A multiple regression model of normal central and peripheral motor conduction times

A multiple regression model of normal central and peripheral motor conduction times

Effects of differences in age and body height on normal values of central motor conduction time determined by F-waves

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Diagnosis of Cervical Compressive Myelopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About