Kawohl Wolfram, Waberski Till Dino, Darvas Felix, Norra Christine, Gobbelé René, Buchner Helmut
Psychiatric University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Clin Neurophysiol. 2007 Jun;24(3):257-62. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0b013e3180555e49.
The purpose of the study was to determine if there is a difference in the determination of the cortical hand area by dipole source estimation after artificial and natural stimuli. In principle, there are advantages of both methods: pressure stimulation is less invasive and compatible to fMRI, whereas electrical stimulation can be applied with higher stimulus rates and elicits sharper waveforms. Electrical and pressure stimulation was performed simultaneously on the thumb and fifth finger on eight healthy volunteers. The somatosensory evoked potentials after electrical stimulation showed sharper peaks and higher amplitudes than the pressure stimulated potentials. For the two stimulus qualities, cortical source positions of thumb and fifth finger separated significantly in the vertical z-axis. Both methods deliver reliable stimulation and therefore allow separate source localization of thumb and fifth finger. For cortical plasticity studies, peripheral somatosensory stimulation is of great importance. According to these findings, the choice of method, electrical or mechanical stimulation, may depend on practical criteria.
该研究的目的是确定在人工刺激和自然刺激后，通过偶极子源估计法测定皮质手部区域时是否存在差异。原则上，两种方法都有优点：压力刺激侵入性较小且与功能磁共振成像兼容，而电刺激可以以更高的刺激速率施加并引发更尖锐的波形。对八名健康志愿者的拇指和小指同时进行电刺激和压力刺激。电刺激后的体感诱发电位比压力刺激后的电位显示出更尖锐的峰值和更高的振幅。对于这两种刺激性质，拇指和小指的皮质源位置在垂直z轴上有显著分离。两种方法都能提供可靠的刺激，因此可以对拇指和小指进行单独的源定位。对于皮质可塑性研究，外周体感刺激非常重要。根据这些发现，电刺激或机械刺激方法的选择可能取决于实际标准。
