通过解剖测量和磁场建模评估经颅磁刺激的运动和非运动效应

IF 2.7 4区医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1016/j.neucli.2024.103011

Francis Houde , Russell Butler , Etienne St-Onge , Marylie Martel , Véronique Thivierge , Maxime Descoteaux , Kevin Whittingstall , Guillaume Leonard

{"title":"通过解剖测量和磁场建模评估经颅磁刺激的运动和非运动效应","authors":"Francis Houde , Russell Butler , Etienne St-Onge , Marylie Martel , Véronique Thivierge , Maxime Descoteaux , Kevin Whittingstall , Guillaume Leonard","doi":"10.1016/j.neucli.2024.103011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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 (<em>p</em> < 0.05). No correlations were found between these metrics for the STG and TMS non-motor effects (pain memory; all p-values > 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":19134,"journal":{"name":"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology","volume":"54 6","pages":"Article 103011"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anatomical measurements and field modeling to assess transcranial magnetic stimulation motor and non-motor effects\",\"authors\":\"Francis Houde , Russell Butler , Etienne St-Onge , Marylie Martel , Véronique Thivierge , Maxime Descoteaux , Kevin Whittingstall , Guillaume Leonard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.neucli.2024.103011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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 (<em>p</em> < 0.05). No correlations were found between these metrics for the STG and TMS non-motor effects (pain memory; all p-values > 0.05).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>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.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19134,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology\",\"volume\":\"54 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 103011\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0987705324000698\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0987705324000698","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探索如何利用解剖测量和场建模来改进经颅磁刺激（TMS）对运动和非运动TMS靶点效应的研究。方法使用静息运动阈值（rMT）评估TMS运动效应（靶点为初级运动皮层[M1]），而使用疼痛记忆任务评估TMS非运动效应（靶点为颞上回[STG]）。解剖测量包括头皮-皮层距离（SCD）和皮层厚度（CT），而场建模包括 TMS 诱导的电场（E）的大小。对于 TMS 运动效应，rMT 与 M1 的 SCD、CT 和 E 值相关（p < 0.05）。结论虽然解剖测量和场建模与 TMS 运动效应密切相关，但它们与非运动效应（如疼痛记忆）的关系似乎更加微妙和复杂，这突出表明我们需要进一步提高对 TMS 和虚拟病变范例的使用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Anatomical measurements and field modeling to assess transcranial magnetic stimulation motor and non-motor effects

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.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Neurophysiologie Clinique/Clinical Neurophysiology 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

3.30%

发文量

审稿时长

60 days

期刊介绍： Neurophysiologie Clinique / Clinical Neurophysiology (NCCN) is the official organ of the French Society of Clinical Neurophysiology (SNCLF). This journal is published 6 times a year, and is aimed at an international readership, with articles written in English. These can take the form of original research papers, comprehensive review articles, viewpoints, short communications, technical notes, editorials or letters to the Editor. The theme is the neurophysiological investigation of central or peripheral nervous system or muscle in healthy humans or patients. The journal focuses on key areas of clinical neurophysiology: electro- or magneto-encephalography, evoked potentials of all modalities, electroneuromyography, sleep, pain, posture, balance, motor control, autonomic nervous system, cognition, invasive and non-invasive neuromodulation, signal processing, bio-engineering, functional imaging.