Cargando…
Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping
Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping is a safe, non‐invasive method that can be used to study corticomotor organization. Motor maps are typically acquired at rest, and comparisons to maps obtained during muscle activation have been both limited and contradictory. Understanding the r...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9226845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35748041 http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15346 |
_version_ | 1784734013144956928 |
---|---|
author | Kahl, Cynthia K. Giuffre, Adrianna Wrightson, James G. Kirton, Adam Condliffe, Elizabeth G. MacMaster, Frank P. Zewdie, Ephrem |
author_facet | Kahl, Cynthia K. Giuffre, Adrianna Wrightson, James G. Kirton, Adam Condliffe, Elizabeth G. MacMaster, Frank P. Zewdie, Ephrem |
author_sort | Kahl, Cynthia K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping is a safe, non‐invasive method that can be used to study corticomotor organization. Motor maps are typically acquired at rest, and comparisons to maps obtained during muscle activation have been both limited and contradictory. Understanding the relationship between functional activation of the corticomotor system as recorded by motor mapping is crucial for their use clinically and in research. The present study utilized robotic TMS paired with personalized neuro‐navigation to examine the relationship between resting and active motor map measures and their relationship with motor performance. Twenty healthy right‐handed participants underwent resting and active robotic TMS motor mapping of the first dorsal interosseous to 10% maximum voluntary contraction. Motor map parameters including map area, volume, and measures of map centrality were compared between techniques using paired sample tests of difference and Bland–Altman plots and analysis. Map area, volume, and hotspot magnitude were larger in the active motor maps, while map center of gravity and hotspot locations remained consistent between both maps. No associations were observed between motor maps and motor performance as measured by the Purdue Pegboard Test. Our findings support previous suggestions that maps scale with muscle contraction. Differences in mapping outcomes suggest rest and active motor maps may reflect functionally different corticomotor representations. Advanced analysis methods may better characterize the underlying neurophysiology of both types of motor mapping. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9226845 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92268452022-06-30 Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping Kahl, Cynthia K. Giuffre, Adrianna Wrightson, James G. Kirton, Adam Condliffe, Elizabeth G. MacMaster, Frank P. Zewdie, Ephrem Physiol Rep Original Articles Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) motor mapping is a safe, non‐invasive method that can be used to study corticomotor organization. Motor maps are typically acquired at rest, and comparisons to maps obtained during muscle activation have been both limited and contradictory. Understanding the relationship between functional activation of the corticomotor system as recorded by motor mapping is crucial for their use clinically and in research. The present study utilized robotic TMS paired with personalized neuro‐navigation to examine the relationship between resting and active motor map measures and their relationship with motor performance. Twenty healthy right‐handed participants underwent resting and active robotic TMS motor mapping of the first dorsal interosseous to 10% maximum voluntary contraction. Motor map parameters including map area, volume, and measures of map centrality were compared between techniques using paired sample tests of difference and Bland–Altman plots and analysis. Map area, volume, and hotspot magnitude were larger in the active motor maps, while map center of gravity and hotspot locations remained consistent between both maps. No associations were observed between motor maps and motor performance as measured by the Purdue Pegboard Test. Our findings support previous suggestions that maps scale with muscle contraction. Differences in mapping outcomes suggest rest and active motor maps may reflect functionally different corticomotor representations. Advanced analysis methods may better characterize the underlying neurophysiology of both types of motor mapping. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC9226845/ /pubmed/35748041 http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15346 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Physiological Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Physiological Society and the American Physiological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Kahl, Cynthia K. Giuffre, Adrianna Wrightson, James G. Kirton, Adam Condliffe, Elizabeth G. MacMaster, Frank P. Zewdie, Ephrem Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title | Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title_full | Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title_fullStr | Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title_full_unstemmed | Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title_short | Active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
title_sort | active versus resting neuro‐navigated robotic transcranial magnetic stimulation motor mapping |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9226845/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35748041 http://dx.doi.org/10.14814/phy2.15346 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kahlcynthiak activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT giuffreadrianna activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT wrightsonjamesg activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT kirtonadam activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT condliffeelizabethg activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT macmasterfrankp activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping AT zewdieephrem activeversusrestingneuronavigatedrobotictranscranialmagneticstimulationmotormapping |