Local brain-state dependency of effective connectivity: a pilot TMS-EEG study [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].
Transcranial magnetic stimulation
brain state
effective connectivity
electroencephalography
Journal
Open research Europe
ISSN: 2732-5121
Titre abrégé: Open Res Eur
Pays: Belgium
ID NLM: 9918230081006676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Jul 2022
11 Jul 2022
Historique:
entrez:
29
8
2022
pubmed:
30
8
2022
medline:
30
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Spontaneous cortical oscillations have been shown to modulate cortical responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, whether these oscillations influence cortical effective connectivity is largely unknown. We conducted a pilot study to set the basis for addressing how spontaneous oscillations affect cortical effective connectivity measured through TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs). We applied TMS to the left primary motor cortex and right pre-supplementary motor area of three subjects while recording EEG. We classified trials off-line into positive- and negative-phase classes according to the mu and beta rhythms. We calculated differences in the global mean-field amplitude (GMFA) and compared the cortical spreading of the TMS-evoked activity between the two classes. Phase affected the GMFA in four out of 12 datasets (3 subjects × 2 stimulation sites × 2 frequency bands). Two of the observed significant intervals were before 50 ms, two between 50 and 100 ms, and one after 100 ms post-stimulus. Source estimates showed complex spatial differences between the classes in the cortical spreading of the TMS-evoked activity. TMS-evoked effective connectivity seems to depend on the phase of local cortical oscillations at the stimulated site. This work paves the way to design future closed-loop stimulation paradigms.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Spontaneous cortical oscillations have been shown to modulate cortical responses to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). However, whether these oscillations influence cortical effective connectivity is largely unknown. We conducted a pilot study to set the basis for addressing how spontaneous oscillations affect cortical effective connectivity measured through TMS-evoked potentials (TEPs).
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We applied TMS to the left primary motor cortex and right pre-supplementary motor area of three subjects while recording EEG. We classified trials off-line into positive- and negative-phase classes according to the mu and beta rhythms. We calculated differences in the global mean-field amplitude (GMFA) and compared the cortical spreading of the TMS-evoked activity between the two classes.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Phase affected the GMFA in four out of 12 datasets (3 subjects × 2 stimulation sites × 2 frequency bands). Two of the observed significant intervals were before 50 ms, two between 50 and 100 ms, and one after 100 ms post-stimulus. Source estimates showed complex spatial differences between the classes in the cortical spreading of the TMS-evoked activity.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
TMS-evoked effective connectivity seems to depend on the phase of local cortical oscillations at the stimulated site. This work paves the way to design future closed-loop stimulation paradigms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36035767
doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.14634.2
pmc: PMC7613446
mid: EMS152876
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
45Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : 810377
Pays : International
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: P.L. has received consulting fees (unrelated to this work) from Nexstim Plc. R.J.I. is a minority shareholder of Nexstim Plc. The other authors declare no competing interests. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.
Références
Neuropsychologia. 2009 Jan;47(1):284-8
pubmed: 18722393
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2017 Feb 09;4(1):1202
pubmed: 28303254
Neuroimage. 2019 Dec;203:116194
pubmed: 31525495
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1996 Jan;16(1):7-22
pubmed: 8530558
Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 01;9:2108
pubmed: 30443236
Trends Neurosci. 2016 Feb;39(2):86-99
pubmed: 26778721
Brain Stimul. 2020 Nov - Dec;13(6):1580-1587
pubmed: 32949780
Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Apr;121(4):492-501
pubmed: 20093074
Curr Biol. 2015 Dec 7;25(23):3099-105
pubmed: 26752078
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1994 Jan;32(1):35-42
pubmed: 8182960
Nervenarzt. 2019 Aug;90(8):804-808
pubmed: 31236628
Brain Stimul. 2020 Nov - Dec;13(6):1600-1602
pubmed: 33065361
J Neurosci Methods. 2020 Dec 1;346:108893
pubmed: 32791087
J Neurosci Methods. 2004 Mar 15;134(1):9-21
pubmed: 15102499
Brain Topogr. 2020 Jan;33(1):123-134
pubmed: 31691912
J Neurophysiol. 2014 Oct 15;112(8):1885-93
pubmed: 25008413
Neuroimage. 2021 Jan 1;224:117355
pubmed: 32916290
J Neurosci. 2019 Dec 11;39(50):10034-10043
pubmed: 31685655
J Neurosci. 2003 Nov 5;23(31):10122-7
pubmed: 14602828
PLoS One. 2017 Sep 14;12(9):e0184910
pubmed: 28910407
Neuroimage. 2020 Jul 1;214:116761
pubmed: 32198050
Brain Topogr. 2008 Sep;21(1):1-10
pubmed: 18791818
Hum Brain Mapp. 2014 May;35(5):1969-80
pubmed: 23868714
Clin Neurophysiol. 2004 Apr;115(4):812-9
pubmed: 15003761
J Physiol. 2019 Dec;597(23):5671-5686
pubmed: 31535388
Neuroimage. 2020 Oct 15;220:117082
pubmed: 32593801
Brain Stimul. 2018 Mar - Apr;11(2):374-389
pubmed: 29191438
J Neurosci. 2009 Jun 17;29(24):7679-85
pubmed: 19535579
Hum Brain Mapp. 2004 Mar;21(3):154-64
pubmed: 14755835
Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1980 Jun;48(6):609-21
pubmed: 6155251
J Neural Eng. 2013 Dec;10(6):066004
pubmed: 24099977
J Neurosci. 2018 Dec 5;38(49):10525-10534
pubmed: 30355634
Brain Stimul. 2022 Mar-Apr;15(2):523-531
pubmed: 35337598
J Neurosci. 2020 Jan 8;40(2):369-381
pubmed: 31754012
Am J Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;165(8):996-1005
pubmed: 18483133
Neuroimage. 2018 Jul 1;174:587-598
pubmed: 29518567
J Vis Exp. 2019 Aug 20;(150):
pubmed: 31498312
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Apr 25;7:155
pubmed: 23630486
J Neurosci Methods. 2022 Mar 15;370:109486
pubmed: 35074394
Brain Stimul. 2019 Sep - Oct;12(5):1261-1270
pubmed: 31133479
Neurophotonics. 2020 Jan;7(1):015008
pubmed: 32118085
J Neurosci Methods. 2022 Mar 15;370:109491
pubmed: 35101524
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 29;11(7):e0159595
pubmed: 27472278
Brain Stimul. 2018 Jul - Aug;11(4):849-855
pubmed: 29627272
Front Neurosci. 2018 Dec 13;12:954
pubmed: 30618580
Brain Stimul. 2021 Jan-Feb;14(1):4-18
pubmed: 33127580
Clin Neurophysiol. 2017 May;128(5):843-857
pubmed: 28233641
Eur J Neurosci. 2003 Sep;18(5):1206-12
pubmed: 12956719
Neurosci Lett. 2021 Jan 18;742:135538
pubmed: 33259928
Brain Stimul. 2015 May-Jun;8(3):662-3
pubmed: 25704341
Brain Stimul. 2018 Sep - Oct;11(5):1119-1122
pubmed: 29945791
Clin Neurophysiol. 2021 Oct;132(10):2473-2480
pubmed: 34454275
Neuroimage. 2005 Jul 1;26(3):839-51
pubmed: 15955494
Science. 2005 Sep 30;309(5744):2228-32
pubmed: 16195466
J Neurosci. 2012 Jan 4;32(1):243-53
pubmed: 22219286
Brain Stimul. 2019 Jan - Feb;12(1):152-160
pubmed: 30416036
Neuroscience. 2008 Apr 9;152(4):1119-29
pubmed: 18353562
Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:222-5
pubmed: 26736240
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Feb 9;107(6):2681-6
pubmed: 20133802
Front Cell Neurosci. 2016 Apr 07;10:92
pubmed: 27092055
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1999 May;37(3):322-6
pubmed: 10505382
Cereb Cortex. 2019 Aug 14;29(9):3766-3777
pubmed: 30496352