Inhibitory and facilitatory connections from dorsolateral prefrontal to primary motor cortex in healthy humans at rest—An rTMS study

Cao, Na; Pi, Yanling; Liu, Ke; Meng, Hai-Jiang; Wang, Yanqiu; Zhang, Jian; Wu, Yin; Tan, Xiaoying

doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2018.09.032

Cited by 31 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Rollnik et al (2000) applied facilitatory 5 Hz rTMS to the DLPFC and showed that MEP area decreased during DLPFC stimulation. In agreement with these findings, Cao et al (2018) measured MEPs at different time points post DLPFC stimulation (from immediately to up to 60 min post-stimulation) and showed that continuous and intermittent TBS induced an increase and decrease in MEP amplitude, respectively. While this has never been the subject of a systematic investigation, it is possible that discrepancies between studies are explained by differences in stimulation type, timing of the MEP measurements and target definition.…”

Section: Dlpfc Stimulation Did Not Modulate Corticospinal Excitabilitysupporting

confidence: 73%

“…Based on evidence showing inhibitory interactions between the DLPFC and M1 at rest (Cao et al, 2018;Civardi, Cantello, Asselman, & Rothwell, 2001 (Do et al, 2018;Fierro et al, 2010;Rens et al, 2020). On the other hand, other studies showed modulation of MEP magnitude after DLPFC stimulation that are in line with the above-described inhibitory DLPFC-M1 relationship (Cao et al, 2018;Rollnik et al, 2000). For example, Rollnik et al (2000) applied facilitatory 5 Hz rTMS to the DLPFC and showed that MEP area decreased during DLPFC stimulation.…”

Section: Dlpfc Stimulation Did Not Modulate Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hippocampal and striatal responses during motor learning are modulated by prefrontal cortex stimulation

Gann

King

Dolfen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While it is widely accepted that motor sequence learning (MSL) is supported by a prefrontal-mediated interaction between hippocampal and striatal networks, it remains unknown whether the functional responses of these networks can be modulated in humans with targeted experimental interventions. The present proofof-concept study employed a comprehensive multimodal neuroimaging approach, including functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and MR spectroscopy, to investigate whether individually-tailored theta-burst stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can modulate responses in the hippocampus and striatum during motor learning. Our results indicate that stimulation influenced task-related connectivity patterns within hippocampo-frontal and striatal networks. Stimulation also altered the relationship between the levels of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the stimulated prefrontal cortex and learning-related changes in both activity and connectivity in fronto-striato-hippocampal networks. This study provides the first experimental evidence that brain stimulation can alter motor learning-related functional responses in the striatum and hippocampus.

show abstract

Section: Dlpfc Stimulation Did Not Modulate Corticospinal Excitabilitysupporting

confidence: 73%

Section: Dlpfc Stimulation Did Not Modulate Corticospinal Excitabilitymentioning

confidence: 92%

Hippocampal and striatal responses during motor learning are modulated by prefrontal cortex stimulation

Gann

King

Dolfen

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, recent research suggests the involvement of M1 in cognitive skills including attention, memory, language and executive functioning (Tomasino et al 2011;Miranda 2013;Lattari et al 2017;Morya et al 2019). Furthermore, a bi-directional modulation between DLPFC and M1 has been described by non-invasive brain stimulation studies (Cao et al 2018;Mastropasqua et al 2014), thus suggesting that the stimulation of M1 could be involved in cognitive functioning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, the involvement of M1 in cognitive processing has been suggested by TMS studies, which showed an effect of motor cortex regarding: executive functioning and working memory, language, visual attention, and semantic memory (Tomasino et al 2011;Miranda 2013;Lattari et al 2017;Morya et al 2019). Recently, a bi-directional change in excitability from the stimulated DLPFC to M1 has been observed in healthy humans (Cao et al 2018) and rTMS studies have demonstrated that the stimulation of M1 can be modulated by prior stimulation of other cerebral areas, such as the ipsilateral DLPFC (Mastropasqua et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Transcranial random noise stimulation over the primary motor cortex in PD-MCI patients: a crossover, randomized, sham-controlled study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a very common non-motor feature of Parkinson’s disease (PD) and the non-amnestic single-domain is the most frequent subtype. Transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) is a non-invasive technique, which is capable of enhancing cortical excitability. As the main contributor to voluntary movement control, the primary motor cortex (M1) has been recently reported to be involved in higher cognitive functioning. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of tRNS applied over M1 in PD-MCI patients in cognitive and motor tasks. Ten PD-MCI patients, diagnosed according to the Movement Disorder Society, Level II criteria for MCI, underwent active (real) and placebo (sham) tRNS single sessions, at least 1 week apart. Patients underwent cognitive (Digit Span Forward and Backward, Digit Symbol, Visual Search, Letter Fluency, Stroop Test) and motor assessments (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale [UPDRS-ME], specific timed trials for bradykinesia, 10-m walk and Timed up and go tests) before and after each session. A significant improvement in motor ability (UPDRS-ME and lateralized scores, ps from 0.049 to 0.003) was observed after real versus sham tRNS. On the contrary, no significant differences were found in other motor tasks and cognitive assessment both after real and sham stimulations. These results confirm that tRNS is a safe and effective tool for improving motor functioning in PD-MCI. Future studies using a multisession tRNS applied over multitargeted brain areas (i.e., dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and M1) are required to clarify the role of tRNS regarding rehabilitative intervention in PD.

show abstract

“…Changes in the neurocognitive profile after high-frequency rTMS on the left DLPFC reported in patients with depression (Brunoni and Vanderhasselt, 2014;Moser et al, 2002;Serafini et al, 2015;Shajahan et al, 2002;Triggs et al, 1999;Vanderhasselt et al, 2009), stroke (D'Agata et al, 2016;Jorge et al, 2004;Miniussi and Rossini, 2011), ADHD (Bloch et al, 2010;Cao et al, 2018), and progressive neurodegenerative disease (Ahmed et al, 2012;Anderkova and Rektorova, 2014;Hsu et al, 2015). In a systematic review, rTMS to the DLPFC significantly improved all measures of working memory performance (Brunoni and Vanderhasselt, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional and neurophysiologic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Kim¹,

Cui²,

Jin³

et al. 2020

Journal of Integrative Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Twenty-seven healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 equal groups : (1) experimental group (active stimulation) and (2) control group (sham stimulation). A total of 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at 80% of the resting motor threshold. The reaction time of the correct response, omission error, and commission error of the auditory and visual continuous performance test scores were measured. The motor evoked potentials, resting motor threshold, short-interval intracortical inhibition, and intracortical facilitation was recorded in the right first dorsal interosseous muscle to determine motor cortex excitability. The reaction time and commission error of the auditory continuous performance test were reduced significantly after 10 Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P < 0.05). Resting motor threshold and short-interval intracortical inhibition was significantly decreased after active repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (P < 0.05), with no changes in the latency and amplitude of the motor evoked potentials and intracortical facilitation. In conclusion, high-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is shown to improve the attentional function and may be simultaneously associated with changes in neurophysiological activity.

show abstract

Inhibitory and facilitatory connections from dorsolateral prefrontal to primary motor cortex in healthy humans at rest—An rTMS study

Cited by 31 publications

References 36 publications

Hippocampal and striatal responses during motor learning are modulated by prefrontal cortex stimulation

Hippocampal and striatal responses during motor learning are modulated by prefrontal cortex stimulation

Transcranial random noise stimulation over the primary motor cortex in PD-MCI patients: a crossover, randomized, sham-controlled study

Attentional and neurophysiologic effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About