Transcranial electrical and magnetic motor cortex stimulation: studies in intact man.

Neurologija Pub Date : 1989-01-01
J Zidar, T Zgur, K Kiprovski
{"title":"Transcranial electrical and magnetic motor cortex stimulation: studies in intact man.","authors":"J Zidar,&nbsp;T Zgur,&nbsp;K Kiprovski","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The new method of transcranial electrical and magnetic brain stimulation was tested in 41 normal subjects. Stimulation on the scalp excites corticospinal neurones in the motor cortex while stimulation over the spine excites spinal nerve roots. The difference between EMG response latencies after both stimulations represents conduction in the central motor pathways and is called central motor latency (CML). The aim of out experiments was to investigate certain methodological aspects of the technique in order to standardize the procedure. Recordings were done from slightly contracted abductor digiti minimi and tibialis anterior muscles after electrical stimulation on the scalp and from the relaxed and contracted abductor digiti minimi and biceps brachii muscles after magnetic brain stimulation. Stimulation over the spine (C7/T1 interspace in case of upper limb muscles stimulation and T12/L1 interspace in case of tibialis anterior stimulation) was always electrical. Using a rather weak non-commercial magnetic stimulator we were not able to activate lower limb muscles, neither we succeeded to evoke responses from the relaxed arm muscles in all subjects. Electrical scalp stimulation proved successful in all cases. Muscle response after cortical stimulation in contracting muscles and shorter latencies and provided more accurate estimate of conduction time in the central motor pathways than responses in the relaxed muscles. Latencies should be measured from several superimposed responses and not from averaged ones. The intensity of stimulation over the neck did not affect CML. We nevertheless suggest that the strongest stimulus intensities should not be used in order to avoid CML overestimation.</p>","PeriodicalId":76210,"journal":{"name":"Neurologija","volume":"38 4","pages":"271-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurologija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The new method of transcranial electrical and magnetic brain stimulation was tested in 41 normal subjects. Stimulation on the scalp excites corticospinal neurones in the motor cortex while stimulation over the spine excites spinal nerve roots. The difference between EMG response latencies after both stimulations represents conduction in the central motor pathways and is called central motor latency (CML). The aim of out experiments was to investigate certain methodological aspects of the technique in order to standardize the procedure. Recordings were done from slightly contracted abductor digiti minimi and tibialis anterior muscles after electrical stimulation on the scalp and from the relaxed and contracted abductor digiti minimi and biceps brachii muscles after magnetic brain stimulation. Stimulation over the spine (C7/T1 interspace in case of upper limb muscles stimulation and T12/L1 interspace in case of tibialis anterior stimulation) was always electrical. Using a rather weak non-commercial magnetic stimulator we were not able to activate lower limb muscles, neither we succeeded to evoke responses from the relaxed arm muscles in all subjects. Electrical scalp stimulation proved successful in all cases. Muscle response after cortical stimulation in contracting muscles and shorter latencies and provided more accurate estimate of conduction time in the central motor pathways than responses in the relaxed muscles. Latencies should be measured from several superimposed responses and not from averaged ones. The intensity of stimulation over the neck did not affect CML. We nevertheless suggest that the strongest stimulus intensities should not be used in order to avoid CML overestimation.

经颅电和磁运动皮层刺激:在完整的人的研究。
对41名正常人进行了经颅电磁脑刺激试验。头皮上的刺激刺激运动皮层中的皮质脊髓神经元,而脊柱上的刺激刺激脊髓神经根。两种刺激后的肌电反应潜伏期之间的差异代表了中枢运动通路的传导,称为中枢运动潜伏期(CML)。我们实验的目的是调查该技术的某些方法学方面,以便使程序标准化。头皮电刺激后轻微收缩的指外展肌和胫前肌进行记录,脑磁刺激后放松收缩的指外展肌和肱二头肌进行记录。对脊柱的刺激(上肢肌肉刺激时为C7/T1间隙,胫骨前肌刺激时为T12/L1间隙)均为电刺激。使用一个相当弱的非商业磁刺激器,我们不能激活下肢肌肉,我们也不能成功地唤起所有受试者放松的手臂肌肉的反应。头皮电刺激在所有病例中都证明是成功的。在皮质刺激后收缩肌肉的肌肉反应和更短的潜伏期,并提供了更准确的估计传导时间在中央运动通路比在放松肌肉的反应。延迟应该从多个叠加响应中测量,而不是从平均响应中测量。颈部刺激强度对CML无影响。然而,我们建议不应使用最强的刺激强度,以避免CML的高估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书