Neurophysiologie clinique = Clinical neurophysiology · 2024
Anatomical measurements and field modeling to assess transcranial magnetic stimulation motor and non-motor effects.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Houde Francis, Butler Russell, St-Onge Etienne, Martel Marylie, Thivierge Véronique, Descoteaux Maxime, Whittingstall Kevin, Leonard Guillaume
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Explore how anatomical measurements and field modeling can be leveraged to improve investigations of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) effects on both motor and non-motor TMS targets.
METHODS: TMS motor effects (targeting the primary motor cortex [M1]) were evaluated using the resting motor threshold (rMT), while TMS non-motor effects (targeting the superior temporal gyrus [STG]) were assessed using a pain memory task. Anatomical measurements included scalp-cortex distance (SCD) and cortical thickness (CT), whereas field modeling encompassed the magnitude of the electric field (E) induced by TMS.
RESULTS: Anatomical measurements and field modeling values differed significantly between M1 and STG. For TMS motor effects, rMT was correlated with SCD, CT, and E values at M1 (p < 0.05). No correlations were found between these metrics for the STG and TMS non-motor effects (pain memory; all p-values > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Although anatomical measurements and field modeling are closely related to TMS motor effects, their relationship to non-motor effects - such as pain memory - appear to be much more tenuous and complex, highlighting the need for further advancement in our use of TMS and virtual lesion paradigms.
METHODS: TMS motor effects (targeting the primary motor cortex [M1]) were evaluated using the resting motor threshold (rMT), while TMS non-motor effects (targeting the superior temporal gyrus [STG]) were assessed using a pain memory task. Anatomical measurements included scalp-cortex distance (SCD) and cortical thickness (CT), whereas field modeling encompassed the magnitude of the electric field (E) induced by TMS.
RESULTS: Anatomical measurements and field modeling values differed significantly between M1 and STG. For TMS motor effects, rMT was correlated with SCD, CT, and E values at M1 (p < 0.05). No correlations were found between these metrics for the STG and TMS non-motor effects (pain memory; all p-values > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Although anatomical measurements and field modeling are closely related to TMS motor effects, their relationship to non-motor effects - such as pain memory - appear to be much more tenuous and complex, highlighting the need for further advancement in our use of TMS and virtual lesion paradigms.