Decreased corticospinal excitability after subthreshold 1 Hz rTMS over lateral premotor cortex

Gerschlager, Willibald; Siebner, Hartwig R.; Rothwell, John C.

doi:10.1212/wnl.57.3.449

Cited by 310 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

181

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such an effect was not found after rTMS applied over the PMC (Experiment 2, Figure 3B) whereas only a trend toward suppression was found after rTMS over the primary motor cortex (Experiment 3, Figure 3C). Although the suppression of cortico-spinal excitability following low-rate rTMS of the motor cortex in Experiment 3 is consistent with other observations (Chen et al, 1997;Hallett, 2000;Maeda, Keenan, Tormos, Topka, & PascualLeone, 2000b;Pascual-Leone et al, 1999Rothwell, 1991;Walsh & Cowey, 2000) the lack of similar effects in Experiment 2 (when the rTMS was applied to the PMC) is surprising in light of findings that have shown the presence of a robust decrease of cortico-spinal excitability after 1 Hz rTMS to the PMC (Gerschlager, Siebner, & Rothwell, 2001) when intensities of 90% of motor threshold has been employed (Rizzo et al, 2003). Other studies employing low intensities of stimulation (80% MT) on the same premotor spot have shown small or no modulatory effects on MEP amplitude (Mü nchau, Bloem, Trimble, & Rothwell, 2002).…”

supporting

confidence: 89%

Release of premotor activity after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of prefrontal cortex

Gangitano

Mottaghy

Pascual‐Leone

2008

Social Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study we aimed to explore by means of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) the reciprocal influences between prefrontal cortex (PFC) and premotor cortex (PMC). Subjects were asked to observe on a computer monitor different pictures representing manipulations of different kind of tools. They had to produce a movement (go condition) or to keep the resting position (no-go condition) at the appearance of different cue signals represented by different colors shown alternatively on the hands manipulating the tools or on the picture background. Motor evoked potentials (MEPs) were collected at the offset of the visual stimuli before and after a 10 minute, 1 Hz rTMS train applied to the dorsolateral PFC (Experiment 1), to the PMC (Experiment 2) or to the primary motor cortex (Experiment 3). Following rTMS to the PFC, MEPs increased in the go condition when the cue for the go command was presented on the hand. In contrast, following rTMS to the PMC, in the same condition, MEPs were decreased. rTMS to the primary motor cortex did not produce any modulation. Results are discussed according to the presence of a visual-motor matching system in the PMC and to the role of the PFC in the attention-related processes. We hypothesize that the perceptual analysis for action selection within the PFC was modulated by rTMS and its temporary functional inactivation in turn influenced the premotor areas for motor programming

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 89%

Release of premotor activity after repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of prefrontal cortex

Gangitano

Mottaghy

Pascual‐Leone

2008

Social Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inhibitory effects of rTMS have been studied mainly after stimulation over the primary motor cortex. Excitability changes of the primary motor cortex can also be induced by stimulation of areas with strong connections to the motor cortex such as the premotor cortex or the opposite hemisphere motor cortex (Gerschlager et al 2001;Mu¨nchau et al 2002;Rizzo et al 2004;Kobayashi et al 2004). Effects on cortical excitability are inferred from changes in the threshold for eliciting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) (Pascual-Leone et al 1998;Maeda et al 2000), changes in the duration of the cortical silent period (SP) (Ridding et al 1995;Khedr et al 2004), or from reduced or enhanced effects of conditioning as measured by paired pulse stimulation (Ridding et al 1995;Modugno et al 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low frequency rTMS effects on sensorimotor synchronization

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies using low frequency (1 Hz) rTMS over the motor and premotor cortex have examined repetitive movements, but focused either on motor aspects of performance such as movement speed, or on variability of the produced intervals. A novel question is whether TMS affects the synchronization of repetitive movements with an external cue (sensorimotor synchronization). In the present study participants synchronized finger taps with the tones of an auditory metronome. The aim of the study was to examine whether motor and premotor cortical inhibition induced by rTMS affects timing aspects of synchronization performance such as the coupling between the tap and the tone and error correction after a metronome perturbation. Metronome sequences included perturbations corresponding to a change in the duration of a single interval (phase shifts) that were either small and below the threshold for conscious perception (10 ms) or large and perceivable (50 ms). Both premotor and motor cortex stimulation induced inhibition, as reflected in a lengthening of the silent period. Neither motor nor premotor cortex rTMS altered error correction after a phase shift. However, motor cortex stimulation made participants tap closer to the tone, yielding a decrease in tap-tone asynchrony. This provides the first neurophysiological demonstration of a dissociation between error correction and tap-tone asynchrony in sensorimotor synchronization. We discuss the results in terms of current theories of timing and error correction.

show abstract

“…At first sight, this seems difficult to reconcile with studies showing a decrease in cortical excitability after long-train low frequency rTMS (Chen et al, 1997;Gerschlager et al, 2001;Kosslyn et al, 1999;Maeda et al, 2000;Muellbacher et al, 2000;Wassermann et al, 1998). It is important to note, however, that these findings were exclusively based on studies in primary motor or primary visual cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%