2013
DOI: 10.3233/rnn-120300
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in thresholds for intracortical excitability in chronic stroke: More than just altered intracortical inhibition

Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of the present study was to assess changes in thresholds for the onset of short intracortical inhibition (SICI) and intracortical facilitation (ICF) in individuals with chronic stroke compared to age-matched healthy adults and evaluate the relationship between these thresholds and motor function in the chronic stroke group. Methods: Paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was used to derive thresholds for the onset of SICI and ICF in 12 neurologically healthy and 12 individuals with… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
16
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(96 reference statements)
1
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Changes in MEP amplitude are difficult to interpret when there is crosstalk from other muscles. For instance, TMS is commonly used to assess corticospinal excitability in clinical populations and in association with interventions . Thus, it is possible that, when the excitability of the target muscle is comparable between conditions, but other muscles are facilitated or inhibited, MEPs collected with conventional EMG may erroneously indicate that the corticospinal excitability of the target muscle was increased or decreased.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Changes in MEP amplitude are difficult to interpret when there is crosstalk from other muscles. For instance, TMS is commonly used to assess corticospinal excitability in clinical populations and in association with interventions . Thus, it is possible that, when the excitability of the target muscle is comparable between conditions, but other muscles are facilitated or inhibited, MEPs collected with conventional EMG may erroneously indicate that the corticospinal excitability of the target muscle was increased or decreased.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This phenomenon, referred to as crosstalk, could influence the amplitude of motor evoked potentials (MEPs) elicited by TMS. Importantly, stimulation parameters, such as localization of the “hotspot” in the primary motor cortex (M1), motor threshold, and stimulation intensity, are routinely based on the amplitude of the MEP, and hence they depend on whether the EMG recording reflects the activation of the target muscle. As the representation of individual muscles may overlap extensively in M1, non‐target muscles can also be stimulated.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Levels of intracortical excitability can be evaluated using paired-pulse TMS (ppTMS) paradigms (Kujirai et al, 1993 ; Nakamura et al, 1997 ). Using ppTMS, altered levels of intracortical inhibition and facilitation in both the ipsilesional and contralesional hemispheres in acute and chronic stroke have been demonstrated (Liepert et al, 2000 ; Manganotti et al, 2002 ; Bütefisch et al, 2003 ; Edwards et al, 2013 ). TMS has also been used to assess interhemispheric interactions in chronic stroke patients (Murase et al, 2004 ; Takeuchi et al, 2010 ).…”
Section: Tmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…P1 and P2 did not show any level of ICF at baseline but similar levels of ICF were recorded in the other two participants (P3 and P4) despite the difference in age. Edwards et al (2013) assessed changes in the onset thresholds for SICI and ICF in stroke patients compared to age-matched healthy adults in both ipsi-and contralesional hemisphere (Edwards et al, 2013) and reported significant reductions in onset thresholds for SICI in the contralesional hemisphere and significant reductions in onset thresholds for ICF in the ipsilesional hemisphere in patients with chronic stroke (Edwards et al, 2013). One possible reason that ICF was not recorded for P1 and P2 could be because of changes in the onset threshold for ICF in these patients and the possibility that the stimulus intensity used in this study was insufficient to activate the facilitatory networks in these patients.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%