Suppr超能文献

分离前额叶背外侧 TMS-EEG 信号中超阈刺激的感觉伪迹。

Isolating sensory artifacts in the suprathreshold TMS-EEG signal over DLPFC.

机构信息

Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2023 Apr 26;13(1):6796. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-29920-2.

Abstract

Combined transcranial magnetic stimulation and electroencephalography (TMS-EEG) is an effective way to evaluate neurophysiological processes at the level of the cortex. To further characterize the TMS-evoked potential (TEP) generated with TMS-EEG, beyond the motor cortex, we aimed to distinguish between cortical reactivity to TMS versus non-specific somatosensory and auditory co-activations using both single-pulse and paired-pulse protocols at suprathreshold stimulation intensities over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Fifteen right-handed healthy participants received six blocks of stimulation including single and paired TMS delivered as active-masked (i.e., TMS-EEG with auditory masking and foam spacing), active-unmasked (TMS-EEG without auditory masking and foam spacing) and sham (sham TMS coil). We evaluated cortical excitability following single-pulse TMS, and cortical inhibition following a paired-pulse paradigm (long-interval cortical inhibition (LICI)). Repeated measure ANOVAs revealed significant differences in mean cortical evoked activity (CEA) of active-masked, active-unmasked, and sham conditions for both the single-pulse (F(1.76, 24.63) = 21.88, p < 0.001, η = 0.61) and LICI (F(1.68, 23.49) = 10.09, p < 0.001, η = 0.42) protocols. Furthermore, global mean field amplitude (GMFA) differed significantly across the three conditions for both single-pulse (F(1.85, 25.89) = 24.68, p < 0.001, η = 0.64) and LICI (F(1.8, 25.16) = 14.29, p < 0.001, η = 0.5). Finally, only active LICI protocols but not sham stimulation ([active-masked (0.78 ± 0.16, P < 0.0001)], [active-unmasked (0.83 ± 0.25, P < 0.01)]) resulted in significant signal inhibition. While previous findings of a significant somatosensory and auditory contribution to the evoked EEG signal are replicated by our study, an artifact attenuated cortical reactivity can reliably be measured in the TMS-EEG signal with suprathreshold stimulation of DLPFC. Artifact attenuation can be accomplished using standard procedures, and even when masked, the level of cortical reactivity is still far above what is produced by sham stimulation. Our study illustrates that TMS-EEG of DLPFC remains a valid investigational tool.

摘要

经颅磁刺激和脑电图(TMS-EEG)联合应用是评估皮质水平神经生理过程的有效方法。为了进一步描述 TMS-EEG 产生的 TMS 诱发电位(TEP),除了运动皮层之外,我们的目标是使用单脉冲和双脉冲方案,在左背外侧前额叶皮层(DLPFC)上的超阈值刺激强度下,区分 TMS 对皮质的反应与非特异性躯体感觉和听觉共激活。15 名右利手健康参与者接受了六个刺激块,包括单脉冲和双脉冲 TMS 作为主动掩蔽(即带听觉掩蔽和泡沫间隔的 TMS-EEG)、主动无掩蔽(不带听觉掩蔽和泡沫间隔的 TMS-EEG)和假刺激(假 TMS 线圈)。我们评估了单脉冲 TMS 后的皮质兴奋性,以及双脉冲范式(长间隔皮质抑制(LICI))后的皮质抑制。重复测量方差分析显示,在单脉冲(F(1.76, 24.63)= 21.88,p < 0.001,η= 0.61)和 LICI(F(1.68, 23.49)= 10.09,p < 0.001,η= 0.42)方案中,主动掩蔽、主动无掩蔽和假刺激条件下的平均皮质诱发电活动(CEA)均有显著差异。此外,在单脉冲(F(1.85, 25.89)= 24.68,p < 0.001,η= 0.64)和 LICI(F(1.8, 25.16)= 14.29,p < 0.001,η= 0.5)方案中,三种条件下的全局平均场幅度(GMFA)均有显著差异。最后,只有主动 LICI 方案([主动掩蔽(0.78 ± 0.16,P < 0.0001)],[主动无掩蔽(0.83 ± 0.25,P < 0.01)])而非假刺激([active-masked(0.78 ± 0.16,P < 0.0001)],[active-unmasked(0.83 ± 0.25,P < 0.01)])会导致信号抑制。虽然我们的研究结果复制了先前关于体感和听觉对诱发电位 EEG 信号有显著贡献的发现,但在 DLPFC 进行超阈值刺激时,可以可靠地在 TMS-EEG 信号中测量到被人为衰减的皮质反应。可以通过标准程序来衰减人为干扰,即使被掩蔽,皮质反应的水平仍然远远高于假刺激产生的水平。我们的研究表明,DLPFC 的 TMS-EEG 仍然是一种有效的研究工具。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7718/10133451/40dd362201b9/41598_2023_29920_Fig1_HTML.jpg

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