Cargando…
Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans
The recent development of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has allowed the non-invasive assessment of cerebellar function in humans. Early studies showed that cerebellar activity, as reflected in the excitability of the dentate-thalamo-cortica...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111316/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40673-016-0057-z |
_version_ | 1782467847183663104 |
---|---|
author | Tremblay, Sara Austin, Duncan Hannah, Ricci Rothwell, John C. |
author_facet | Tremblay, Sara Austin, Duncan Hannah, Ricci Rothwell, John C. |
author_sort | Tremblay, Sara |
collection | PubMed |
description | The recent development of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has allowed the non-invasive assessment of cerebellar function in humans. Early studies showed that cerebellar activity, as reflected in the excitability of the dentate-thalamo-cortical pathway, can be assessed with paired stimulation of the cerebellum and the primary motor cortex (M1) (cerebellar inhibition of motor cortex, CBI). Following this, many attempts have been made, using techniques such as repetitive TMS and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), to modulate the activity of the cerebellum and the dentate-thalamo-cortical output, and measure their impact on M1 activity. The present article reviews literature concerned with the impact of non-invasive stimulation of cerebellum on M1 measures of excitability and “plasticity” in both healthy and clinical populations. The main conclusion from the 27 reviewed articles is that the effects of cerebellar “plasticity” protocols on M1 activity are generally inconsistent. Nevertheless, two measurements showed relatively reproducible effects in healthy individuals: reduced response of M1 to sensorimotor “plasticity” (paired-associative stimulation, PAS) and reduced CBI following repetitive TMS and TES. We discuss current challenges, such as the low power of reviewed studies, variability in stimulation parameters employed and lack of understanding of physiological mechanisms underlying CBI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5111316 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-51113162016-11-28 Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans Tremblay, Sara Austin, Duncan Hannah, Ricci Rothwell, John C. Cerebellum Ataxias Review The recent development of non-invasive brain stimulation techniques such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has allowed the non-invasive assessment of cerebellar function in humans. Early studies showed that cerebellar activity, as reflected in the excitability of the dentate-thalamo-cortical pathway, can be assessed with paired stimulation of the cerebellum and the primary motor cortex (M1) (cerebellar inhibition of motor cortex, CBI). Following this, many attempts have been made, using techniques such as repetitive TMS and transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), to modulate the activity of the cerebellum and the dentate-thalamo-cortical output, and measure their impact on M1 activity. The present article reviews literature concerned with the impact of non-invasive stimulation of cerebellum on M1 measures of excitability and “plasticity” in both healthy and clinical populations. The main conclusion from the 27 reviewed articles is that the effects of cerebellar “plasticity” protocols on M1 activity are generally inconsistent. Nevertheless, two measurements showed relatively reproducible effects in healthy individuals: reduced response of M1 to sensorimotor “plasticity” (paired-associative stimulation, PAS) and reduced CBI following repetitive TMS and TES. We discuss current challenges, such as the low power of reviewed studies, variability in stimulation parameters employed and lack of understanding of physiological mechanisms underlying CBI. BioMed Central 2016-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5111316/ /pubmed/27895926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40673-016-0057-z Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Tremblay, Sara Austin, Duncan Hannah, Ricci Rothwell, John C. Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title | Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title_full | Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title_fullStr | Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title_full_unstemmed | Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title_short | Non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-M1 interactions in humans |
title_sort | non-invasive brain stimulation as a tool to study cerebellar-m1 interactions in humans |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5111316/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40673-016-0057-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tremblaysara noninvasivebrainstimulationasatooltostudycerebellarm1interactionsinhumans AT austinduncan noninvasivebrainstimulationasatooltostudycerebellarm1interactionsinhumans AT hannahricci noninvasivebrainstimulationasatooltostudycerebellarm1interactionsinhumans AT rothwelljohnc noninvasivebrainstimulationasatooltostudycerebellarm1interactionsinhumans |