Biological sex differences in afferent-mediated inhibition of motor responses evoked by TMS

Long-interval afferent inhibition measurement using two different methods: Normative values, repeatability and reliability

BACKGROUND

The mechanism of Short-Latency Afferent Inhibition (SAI) is relatively well understood. In contrast, Long-Latency Afferent Inhibition (LAI) has not been as extensively studied as SAI, and its underlying mechanism remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

This study had two primary objectives: first, to determine the optimal ISIs for LAI measured by amplitude changes (A-LAI) using high-resolution ISI ranges; and second, to compare measurements of LAI by threshold-tracking (T-LAI).

METHODS

Twenty-eight healthy volunteers (12 males aged 24- 45 years) participated in the study. Paired peripheral electrical and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) stimuli (TS1mv) were applied at varying (ISIs)- 100, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 ms.

RESULTS

Both A-LAI and T-LAI showed that LAI decreased progressively from a peak at 200 or 250 ms to 1000 ms. Using the A-LAI method, pronounced inhibition was observed at three specific ISIs: 100 ms, 250 ms and 450 ms. When A-LAI values were converted to equivalent threshold changes, they did not differ significantly from T-LAI. Reliability at distinguishing individuals, as indicated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was greater for A-LAI, with a peak value of 0.82 at 250 ms.

CONCLUSION(S)

The study demonstrates that ISIs of 100 ms and 250 ms can be reliably used in amplitude measurement LAI. The study demonstrates that both LAI measurements record a similar decline of inhibition with increasing ISI.

Effects of prefrontal and parietal neuromodulation on magnitude processing and integration

Numerical cognition is an essential skill for survival, which includes the processing of discrete and continuous quantities, involving a mainly right fronto-parietal network. However, the neurocognitive systems underlying the processing and integration of discrete and continuous quantities are currently under debate. Noninvasive brain stimulation techniques have been used in the study of the neural basis of numerical cognition with a spatial, temporal and functional resolution superior to other neuroimaging techniques. The present randomized sham-controlled single-blinded trial addresses the involvement of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the right intraparietal sulcus in magnitude processing and integration. Multifocal anodal transcranial direct current stimulation was applied online during the execution of magnitude comparison tasks in three conditions: right prefrontal, right parietal and sham stimulation. The results show that prefrontal stimulation produced a moderated decrease in response times in all magnitude processing and integration tasks compared to sham condition. While parietal stimulation had no significant effect on any of the tasks. The effect found is interpreted as a generalized improvement in processing speed and magnitude integration due to right prefrontal neuromodulation, which may be attributable to domain-general or domain-specific factors.

Sex differences in mild vascular cognitive impairment: A multimodal transcranial magnetic stimulation study

BACKGROUND

Sex differences in vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) at risk for future dementia are still debatable. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is used to evaluate cortical excitability and the underlying transmission pathways, although a direct comparison between males and females with mild VCI is lacking.

METHODS

Sixty patients (33 females) underwent clinical, psychopathological, functional, and TMS assessment. Measures of interest consisted of: resting motor threshold, latency of motor evoked potentials (MEPs), contralateral silent period, amplitude ratio, central motor conduction time (CMCT), including the F wave technique (CMCT-F), short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), intracortical facilitation, and short-latency afferent inhibition, at different interstimulus intervals (ISIs).

RESULTS

Males and females were comparable for age, education, vascular burden, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Males scored worse at global cognitive tests, executive functioning, and independence scales. MEP latency was significantly longer in males, from both sides, as well CMCT and CMCT-F from the left hemisphere; a lower SICI at ISI of 3 ms from the right hemisphere was also found. After correction for demographic and anthropometric features, the effect of sex remained statistically significant for MEP latency, bilaterally, and for CMCT-F and SICI. The presence of diabetes, MEP latency bilaterally, and both CMCT and CMCT-F from the right hemisphere inversely correlated with executive functioning, whereas TMS did not correlate with vascular burden.

CONCLUSIONS

We confirm the worse cognitive profile and functional status of males with mild VCI compared to females and first highlight sex-specific changes in intracortical and cortico-spinal excitability to multimodal TMS in this population. This points to some TMS measures as potential markers of cognitive impairment, as well as targets for new drugs and neuromodulation therapies.

Cerebellar transcranial current stimulation – An intraindividual comparison of different techniques

Transcranial current stimulation (tCS) techniques have been shown to induce cortical plasticity. As an important relay in the motor system, the cerebellum is an interesting target for plasticity induction using tCS, aiming to modulate its excitability and connectivity. However, until now it remains unclear, which is the most effective tCS method for inducing plasticity in the cerebellum. Thus, in this study, the effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), 50 Hz transcranial alternating current stimulation (50 Hz tACS), and high frequency transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS) were compared with sham stimulation in 20 healthy subjects in a within-subject design. tCS was applied targeting the cerebellar lobe VIIIA using neuronavigation. We measured corticospinal excitability, short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI), short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), and cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI) and performed a sensor-based movement analysis at baseline and three times after the intervention (post1 = 15 min; post2 = 55 min; post3 = 95 min). Corticospinal excitability increased following cerebellar tACS and tRNS compared to sham stimulation. This effect was most pronounced directly after stimulation but lasted for at least 55 min after tACS. Cortico-cortical and cerebello-cortical conditioning protocols, as well as sensor-based movement analyses, did not change. Our findings suggest that cerebellar 50 Hz tACS is the most effective protocol to change corticospinal excitability.

Short latency afferent inhibition: comparison between threshold-tracking and conventional amplitude recording methods

Short-latency afferent inhibition (SAI), which is conventionally measured as a reduction in motor evoked potential amplitude (A-SAI), is of clinical interest as a potential biomarker for cognitive impairment. Since threshold-tracking has some advantages for clinical studies of short-interval cortical inhibition, we have compared A-SAI with a threshold-tracking alternative method (T-SAI). In the T-SAI method, inhibition was calculated by tracking the required TMS intensity for the targeted MEP amplitude (200 uV) both for the test (TMS only) and paired (TMS and peripheral stimulation) stimuli. A-SAI and T-SAI were recorded from 31 healthy subjects using ten stimuli at each of 12 inter-stimulus intervals, once in the morning and again in the afternoon. There were no differences between morning and afternoon recordings. When A-SAI was normalized by log conversion it was closely related to T-SAI. Between subjects, variability was similar for the two techniques, but within-subject variability was significantly smaller for normalized A-SAI. Conventional amplitude measurements appear more sensitive for detecting changes within-subjects, such as in interventional studies, but threshold-tracking may be as sensitive as detecting abnormal SAI in a patient.