Abstract

Objective: Associative motor cortical plasticity can be non-invasively induced by paired median nerve electric stimulation and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the primary motor cortex (M1). This study investigates whether a simultaneous motor reaction of the other hand advances the associative plasticity in M1.Methods: Twenty-four right-handed subjects received conventional paired associative stimulation (PAS) and PAS with simultaneous motor reaction (PASmr) with at least a 1-week interval. The PASmr protocol additionally included left abductor pollicis brevis muscle movement responding to a digital sound. The motor reaction time was individually measured. The M1 excitability was examined by the motor evoked potential (MEP), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), and intracortical facilitation (ICF) before and after the PAS protocols.Results: The conventional PAS protocol significantly facilitated MEP and suppressed SICI. A negative correlation between the reaction time and the MEP change, and a positive correlation between the reaction time and the ICF change were found in the PASmr protocol. By subgrouping analysis, we further found significant facilitation of MEP and a reduction of ICF in the subjects with fast reaction times but not in those with slow reaction times.Conclusion: Synchronized motor reaction ipsilateral to the stimulated M1 induces associative M1 motor plasticity through the spike-timing dependent principle. MEP and ICF change could represent this kind of plasticity. The current findings provide a novel insight into designing rehabilitation programs concerning motor function.

Highlights

  • The motor cortical plasticity contributes to motor learning and appropriate movements (Sanes and Donoghue, 2000; McKay et al, 2002; Dayan and Cohen, 2011; Kida and Mitsushima, 2018; Kroneberg et al, 2018)

  • This study investigates whether intentional, active movements driven by the contralateral M1 influence the M1 plasticity induced by the conventional Paired associative stimulation (PAS) protocol

  • RmANOVA of the motor evoked potential (MEP) amplitude revealed a significant effect of time (F(1,23) = 6.21, P = 0.02; Table 2)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The motor cortical plasticity contributes to motor learning and appropriate movements (Sanes and Donoghue, 2000; McKay et al, 2002; Dayan and Cohen, 2011; Kida and Mitsushima, 2018; Kroneberg et al, 2018). A specific type of plasticity following Hebb’s theory, or known as the spiketiming dependent principle, has been found existing in the human motor cortex (M1) (Hebb, 1949; Müller-Dahlhaus et al, 2010). Has it been observed in the cell level, and in the systemic and behavioral level (Zhang et al, 1998; Stefan et al, 2000; Bi and Poo, 2001; Dan and Poo, 2004; Cooke and Bliss, 2006; Ziemann et al, 2008). The somatosensory inputs can be alternative from electric stimulation, passive movement to active movement once the spike-timing dependent principle is followed (Stefan et al, 2000; Thabit et al, 2010; Edwards et al, 2014)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call