2014
DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bht422
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laterality Differences in Cerebellar–Motor Cortex Connectivity

Abstract: Lateralization of function is an important organizational feature of the motor system. Each effector is predominantly controlled by the contralateral cerebral cortex and the ipsilateral cerebellum. Transcranial magnetic stimulation studies have revealed hemispheric differences in the stimulation strength required to evoke a muscle response from the primary motor cortex (M1), with the dominant hemisphere typically requiring less stimulation than the nondominant. The current study assessed whether the strength o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
35
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
6
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Alike a functional lateralization has been reported for the also cerebellum (Bernard et al 2014; Mattay et al 1998; Schlerf et al 2015), in accordance to our findings. Yet our analyses also point towards lateralization in connectivity beyond the motor domain.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…Alike a functional lateralization has been reported for the also cerebellum (Bernard et al 2014; Mattay et al 1998; Schlerf et al 2015), in accordance to our findings. Yet our analyses also point towards lateralization in connectivity beyond the motor domain.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 94%
“…As we have previously shown in motor adaptation studies8954, we found that CB-M1 connectivity changed early in the (long and short) skill-learning groups only, and returned to baseline levels as training proceeded. Given that we controlled for M1 excitability modifications when assessing CBI (by adjusting TMS intensities) and the fact that M1 excitability changed similarly in all groups and in all the post-training time points, we interpreted the specific CBI findings as driven by cerebellar plasticity.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Although the physiology of cerebellar TMS remains poorly understood, it is possible that stimulation results in the parallelfiber-mediated activation of PCs, which inhibit the DCN (Celnik, 2015). The reduced CBI closer to movement initiation in this study may therefore represent a decrease of inhibition from hand-or leg-affiliated PCs that activate hand-or leg-affiliated DN cells, respectively.…”
Section: Premovement Cbi Changes Versus Learning-induced Cbi Changesmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…First, we determined the brainstem motor threshold using a double cone coil (Magstim) over the inion. This is defined as the minimal intensity (to the nearest 5% of stimulator output) required to elicit five 50 v MEPs of the target muscle (Rossini et al, 2015). Second, we tested CBI by delivering a conditioning stimulus (CS) 3 cm lateral to the inion and 5 ms before a test stimulus ( A, Experiment 1 consisted of five behavioral blocks and three physiological measurements.…”
Section: Experiments 1: Cbi Changes Due To Visuomotor Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%