Modified ischaemic nerve block of the forearm: use for the induction of cortical plasticity in distal hand muscles

Hayashi, Ryutaro; Ogata, Katsuya; Nakazono, Hisato; Tobimatsu, Shozó

doi:10.1113/jp277639

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In future studies, the hypothesis must be tested in humans. Investigation of the crossed inhibition without somatosensation may be possible if one uses ischemic nerve block (Hayashi et al, 2019 ) or local anesthesia. Further studies on the patients with diabetic polyneuropathy in which the proprioception is selectively impaired (Bloem et al, 2000 ) may also be a nice idea for investigating crossed inhibition without somatosensation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase-Dependent Crossed Inhibition Mediating Coordination of Anti-phase Bilateral Rhythmic Movement: A Mini Review

Hiraoka

2021

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The activity of the left and right central pattern generators (CPGs) is efficiently coordinated during locomotion. To achieve this coordination, the interplay between the CPG controlling one leg and that controlling another must be present. Previous findings in aquatic vertebrates and mammalians suggest that the alternate activation of the left and right CPGs is mediated by the commissural interneurons crossing the midline of the spinal cord. Especially, V0 commissural interneurons mediate crossed inhibition during the alternative activity of the left and right CPGs. Even in humans, phase-dependent modulation of the crossed afferent inhibition during gait has been reported. Based on those previous findings, crossed inhibition of the CPG in one leg side caused by the activation of the contralateral CPG is a possible mechanism underlying the coordination of the anti-phase rhythmic movement of the legs. It has been hypothesized that the activity of the flexor half center in the CPG inhibits the contralateral flexor half center, but crossed inhibition of the extensor half center is not present because of the existence of the double limb support during gait. Nevertheless, previous findings on the phase-dependent crossed inhibition during anti-phase bilateral movement of the legs are not in line with this hypothesis. For example, extensor activity caused crossed inhibition of the flexor half center during bilateral cycling of the legs. In another study, the ankle extensor was inhibited at the period switching from extension to flexion during anti-phase rhythmic movement of the ankles. In this review article, I provide a critical discussion about crossed inhibition mediating the coordination of the anti-phase bilateral rhythmic movement of the legs.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phase-Dependent Crossed Inhibition Mediating Coordination of Anti-phase Bilateral Rhythmic Movement: A Mini Review

Hiraoka

2021

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Motor evoked potentials were recorded as in our previous studies (Nakazono et al, 2016;Hayashi et al, 2019;Ogata et al, 2019).…”

Section: Motor Evoked Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

After-Effects of Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation Are Differentially and Phase-Dependently Suppressed by α- and β-Frequency Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

Ogata

Nakazono

Ikeda

et al. 2021

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is known to produce excitatory after-effects over the primary motor cortex (M1). Recently, transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) at 10 Hz (α) and 20 Hz (β) have been shown to modulate M1 excitability in a phase-dependent manner. Therefore, we hypothesized that tACS would modulate the after-effects of iTBS depending on the stimulation frequency and phase. To test our hypothesis, we examined the effects of α- and β-tACS on iTBS using motor evoked potentials (MEPs). Eighteen and thirteen healthy participants were recruited for α and β tACS conditions, respectively. tACS electrodes were attached over the left M1 and Pz. iTBS over left M1 was performed concurrently with tACS. The first pulse of the triple-pulse burst of iTBS was controlled to match the peak (90°) or trough (270°) phase of the tACS. A sham tACS condition was used as a control in which iTBS was administered without tACS. Thus, each participant was tested in three conditions: the peak and trough of the tACS phases and sham tACS. As a result, MEPs were enhanced after iTBS without tACS (sham condition), as observed in previous studies. α-tACS suppressed iTBS effects at the peak phase but not at the trough phase, while β-tACS suppressed the effects at both phases. Thus, although both types of tACS inhibited the facilitatory effects of iTBS, only α-tACS did so in a phase-dependent manner. Phase-dependent inhibition by α-tACS is analogous to our previous finding in which α-tACS inhibited MEPs online at the peak condition. Conversely, β-tACS reduced the effects of iTBS irrespective of its phase. The coupling of brain oscillations and tACS rhythms is considered important in the generation of spike-timing-dependent plasticity. Additionally, the coupling of θ and γ oscillations is assumed to be important for iTBS induction through long-term potentiation (LTP). Therefore, excessive coupling between β oscillations induced by tACS and γ or θ oscillations induced by iTBS might disturb the coupling of θ and γ oscillations during iTBS. To conclude, the action of iTBS is differentially modulated by neuronal oscillations depending on whether α- or β-tACS is applied.

show abstract

“…In addition, the aftereffects of INB were not investigated systematically with respect to the muscles distal to the tourniquet. Based on these previous studies, we introduced a modest ischemic nerve block using the mean blood pressure to inflate the tourniquet (modified INB, mINB) 33 . mINB is not painful, and it also blocks peripheral nerves that can estimate using MEPs and SEPs.…”

Section: Innovations In Inducing Short‐term Cortical Plasticitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Based on these previous studies, we introduced a modest ischemic nerve block using the mean blood pressure to inflate the tourniquet (modified INB, mINB). 33 Although the precise mechanisms underlying the aftereffects of mINB have not been determined, the interaction between M1 and S1 appears to be involved. S1 inhibition by cTBS was found to facilitate MEPs, 34 with opposing effects on M1 and S1.…”

Section: Application Of Modified Ischemic Nerve Block (Minb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and short‐term cortical plasticity

Ogata

2020

Neurology & Clinical Neurosc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non‐invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques have been widely used to study central nervous system pathophysiology and have revealed new information about the functional roles of specific brain structures. This review first outlines the basic technologies and neural mechanisms associated with NIBS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) was first utilized to obtain motor‐evoked potentials, which reflect corticospinal tract function. Later, studies using repetitive TMS and patterned TMS‐like theta‐burst stimulation reported the presence of aftereffects, which can enhance or inhibit cortical excitability depending on the stimulus frequency or continuous/intermittent stimulation. Over the past two decades, transcranial electrical stimulation has become increasingly popular for neuromodulation, which includes direct current stimulation (tDCS) and alternating current stimulation (tACS). While tDCS modulates cortical excitability depending on the stimulation polarity, tACS exerts its effects in a frequency‐phase–dependent manner. Although entrainment may be an important underlying mechanism, the recorded aftereffects are likely due to spike‐timing–dependent plasticity. Second, recent innovations using NIBS to induce short‐term cortical plasticity are highlighted. State‐dependent or informed open‐loop stimulation can be used to explore the interactions between endogenous cortical oscillations and TMS. Electroencephalographic oscillations prior to TMS stimulation reflect instantaneous cortical excitability depending on the stimulation power and phase, and repetitive TMS at a certain EEG state can enhance cortical excitability. Finally, temporal deafferentation of the peripheral nerve induced by a modified ischemic nerve block can modulate sensorimotor function after tourniquet deflation. Overall, NIBS techniques are promising tools for investigating human brain functions and developing new protocols for neurorehabilitation.

show abstract

Modified ischaemic nerve block of the forearm: use for the induction of cortical plasticity in distal hand muscles

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

Phase-Dependent Crossed Inhibition Mediating Coordination of Anti-phase Bilateral Rhythmic Movement: A Mini Review

Phase-Dependent Crossed Inhibition Mediating Coordination of Anti-phase Bilateral Rhythmic Movement: A Mini Review

After-Effects of Intermittent Theta-Burst Stimulation Are Differentially and Phase-Dependently Suppressed by α- and β-Frequency Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

Non‐invasive brain stimulation and short‐term cortical plasticity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About