Suppr超能文献

应用体感诱发电位和近红外光谱研究四脉冲经颅磁刺激(QPS)对健侧半球的在线影响。

On-line effects of quadripulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (QPS) on the contralateral hemisphere studied with somatosensory evoked potentials and near infrared spectroscopy.

机构信息

Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, 1 Hikarigaoka, Fukushima 960-1295, Japan.

出版信息

Exp Brain Res. 2011 Oct;214(4):577-86. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2855-0. Epub 2011 Sep 9.

Abstract

To evaluate on-line effects of quadripulse stimulation (QPS) over the primary motor cortex (M1) on cortical areas in the contralateral hemisphere. QPS consisted of 24 bursts of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) pulses with an inter-burst interval of 5 s for 2 min (for on-line effect study) or 360 bursts for 30 min (for after-effect study). Each burst consisted of four TMS pulses (i.e. QPS) separated by an interstimulus interval of 5 or 50 ms (QPS-5 or QPS-50). QPSs were delivered over the left M1. Experiment 1 [on-line effect on somatosensory evoked potential (SEP)]: Left median nerve SEPs were recorded before, during and after QPS. Experiment 2 (after effect on SEP): After-effects of QPS were evaluated by following up SEPs after the QPS sessions. Experiment 3 (on-line effect on NIRS): Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) was also recorded at the right hemisphere during all QPS paradigms. Both QPS-5 and QPS-50 enlarged a cortical component of the contralateral SEP during stimulation. On the other hand, concerning the after effects, QPS-5 over M1 potentiated the contralateral SEP and QPS-50 tended to depress it. In NIRS study, both QPS-5 and QPS-50 induced a significant oxy-Hb decrease (deactivation pattern) at the right hemisphere during stimulation whereas sham stimulations unaffected them. We have shown the unidirectional on-line effects evoked by QPS-5 and QPS-50 on both SEP and NIRS, and bidirectional after effects on SEP at the contralateral hemisphere. The discrepancy between on-line effect and after effect may be explained by the differences in the underlying mechanisms between them. The former may be mainly explained by pure electrophysiological property changes in the membrane or synapses. The latter may be explained by synaptic efficacy changes which need some protein syntheses at least partly. Another discrepancy shown here is the direction of on-line effects. Electrophysiological (SEP) function was potentiated by both QPSs whereas hemodynamic (NIRS) function was depressed. This may be explained by which sensory areas contribute to NIRS or SEP generation.

摘要

评估四脉冲刺激(QPS)对大脑对侧运动皮层(M1)的在线影响。QPS 由 24 个经颅磁刺激(TMS)脉冲组成,每个脉冲之间的间隔为 5 秒,持续 2 分钟(用于在线效应研究)或 360 个脉冲,持续 30 分钟(用于后效研究)。每个脉冲由四个 TMS 脉冲组成(即 QPS),刺激间隔为 5 或 50 毫秒(QPS-5 或 QPS-50)。QPS 施加于左侧 M1。实验 1 [体感诱发电位(SEP)的在线效应]:在 QPS 之前、期间和之后记录左侧正中神经 SEP。实验 2(SEP 的后效):通过 QPS 后效应评估 QPS 后的 SEP 后效。实验 3(NIRS 的在线效应):在所有 QPS 模式下,还在右侧半球记录近红外光谱(NIRS)。QPS-5 和 QPS-50 在刺激期间均使对侧 SEP 的皮质成分扩大。另一方面,关于后效应,M1 上的 QPS-5 增强了对侧 SEP,而 QPS-50 则倾向于抑制它。在 NIRS 研究中,QPS-5 和 QPS-50 在刺激期间均导致右侧半球的 oxy-Hb 显著减少(失活模式),而假刺激则未影响它们。我们已经显示了 QPS-5 和 QPS-50 在 SEP 和 NIRS 上均引起的单向在线效应,以及对侧半球 SEP 的双向后效应。在线效应和后效应之间的差异可能是由它们之间的潜在机制差异解释的。前者可能主要由膜或突触中的纯电生理性质变化来解释。后者可能由突触效能变化来解释,而突触效能变化至少部分需要一些蛋白质合成。这里显示的另一个差异是在线效应的方向。电生理(SEP)功能被两种 QPS 增强,而血液动力学(NIRS)功能被抑制。这可能是由感觉区域对 NIRS 或 SEP 生成的贡献来解释的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验